Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/trialofjesusbefodupi 


THE 


TRIAL    OF    JESUS 


CAIAPHAS  AND  PILATE. 


BEING 

A  REFUTATION  OF  MR.  SALVADOR'S  CHAPTER 


ENTITLED 


By   M.   DUPIN, 

ADVOCATE    AND    DOCTOR    OF    LAWS. 
If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend.  — John  xix   12. 

TRANSLATED    FROM    THE(  FRENCH, 
BY  A   MEMBER  OF  THE  AMERICAN  BAR. 


BOSTON: 

CHARLES    C.   LITTLE    AND    JAMES    BROWN. 
1839. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1839,  by  Charles 
C.  Little  and  James  Brown,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  Dis 
trict  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CAMBRIDGE    PRESS  : 
METCALF,    TORRY,    AND     BALLOU. 


CONTENTS 


Preface  t 

Analysis  of  the  Chapter  of  Mr.  Salvador,  en- 
titled "  The  Administration  of  Justice"  amongr 
the  Jews 1 

TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

Refutation  of  the  Chapter  of  Mr.  Salvador,  en- 
titled "  The  Trial  and  Condemnation  of  Je- 
sus"      17 

SECTION  I. 
Spies,  or  Informers 26 

SECTION  II. 

The  Corruption  and  Treachery  of  Judas  .        28 

SECTION  III. 

Personal  Liberty.  —  Resistance  to  an  Armed 
Force 33 

SECTION  IV. 

Other  Irregularities  in  the  Arrest.  —  Seizure  of 
the  person 36 


IV 


SECTION  V. 

Captious    Interrogatories.  —  Acts    of  Violence 
towards  Jesus 38 

SECTION  VI. 

Witnesses.  —  New  Interrogatories.  —  The  Judge 
in  a  Passion 42 

SECTION  VII. 
Subsequent  Acts  of  Violence  ...        49 

SECTION  VIII. 

The  Position  of  the  Jews  in  respect  to  the  Ro- 
mans   54 

SECTION  IX. 
The  Accusation  made  before  Pilate         .        .        62 

SECTION  X. 
The  last  Efforts  before  Pilate  ...        75 


PREFACE. 


A  few  years  ago,  Mr.  Joseph  Salvador,  a  physi- 
cian —  and  a  descendant  of  one  of  those  Jewish 
families,  whom  the  intolerance  of  Ferdinand  the 
Catholic  expelled,  in  a  body,  from  Spain,  about  the 
year  1492  —  published  at  Paris  a  learned  work,  en- 
titled "  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise  et  du  Peu- 
ple  Hebreu,"  or  History  of  the  Institutions  of  Moses 
and  the  Hebrew  People ;  and  in  one  chapter  of  his 
work  he  gives  an  account  of  the  Administration  of 
Justice  among  the  Hebrews.  To  that  chapter  he  has 
subjoined  an  account  of  the  "  Trial  and  Condemna- 
tion of  Jesus ; "  in  the  course  of  which  he  expresses 
his  opinion,  that  the  trial,  considered  merely  as  a 
legal  proceeding,  was  conformable  to  the  Jewish  laws. 

The  author  of  the  following  little  work,  M.  Dupin, 
who  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  lawyers  of  the 
French  Bar,  immediately  called  in  question  the  cor- 
rectness of  Mr.  Salvador's  opinion,  and  entered  upon 
an  analysis  of  this  portion  of  his  work,  with  a  view  to 
examine  its  soundness  ;  and  the  present  volume  con- 


VI 

tains  the  result  of  that  examination,  conducted  with 
great  legal  skill  and  extensive  learning. 

It  appears,  that  he  had,  many  years  before,  in  a 
little  work,  entitled  "  The  Free  Defence  of  Accused 
Persons,"  published  in  1815,  taken  the  same  views  of 
this  great  trial ;  which,  as  he  observes,  has  been 
justly  called  "  the  Passion  or  Suffering  of  our 
Savior ;  for  he  did  in  truth  suffer,  and  had  not  a 
trial" 

The  author's  attention,  however,  had  been  with- 
drawn from  this  subject  for  several  years,  when  it 
was  again  brought  under  his  notice  by  the  work  of 
Mr.  Salvador  ;  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  him  by 
that  writer,  with  a  request  that  M.  Dupin  would  give 
some  account  of  it.  Accordingly,  says  the  latter, 
"  it  is  in  compliance  with  his  request  and  not  from  a 
spirit  of  hostility,  that  I  have  made  this  examination 
of  his  work ;"  and  he  gives  ample  proof  of  his  good 
feeling  towards  Mr.  Salvador,  with  whom,  he  says,  he 
is  personally  acquainted,  and  for  whose  talents  he  has 
a  great  respect. 

With  this  friendly  spirit  he  enters  upon  his  ex- 
amination ;  which  is  conducted  with  an  ability, 
learning,  animation,  and  interest,  that  leave  nothing 
to  be  desired.  As  an  argument,  his  work  is  unan- 
swerable, he  has  demolished  that  of  his  adversary : 


Vll 

and,  for  intense  interest,  we  do  not  know  any  publi- 
cation of  the  present  day  to  be  compared  with  it. 

The  introductory  Analysis  of  Mr.  Salvador's  chap- 
ter on  the  Administration  of  Justice  according  to  the 
Jewish  Law  will  be  highly  instructive  and  interest- 
ing ;  and  those  persons,  who  have  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  read  the  Bible  with  particular  reference  to 
the  Law,  will  find  many  new  and  striking  views  of 
that  portion  of  the  Scriptures.  They  cannot  fail  to 
be  particularly  struck  with  the  extraordinary  care 
taken  to  secure  by  law  the  personal  liberty  and 
rights  of  the  citizen. 

According  to  Mr.  Salvador's  view  "  the  fundamen- 
tal division  into  castes  is  the  principal  basis  of  the 
oriental  theocracies.  Moses,  on  the  contrary,  took 
for  his  basis  the  unity  of  the  people.  In  his  system 
of  legislation  the  people  are  every  thing  ;  and  the 
author  shows  us,  that  every  thing,  eventually,  is  done 
for  them,  by  them,  and  with  them.  The  tribe  of  Levi 
was  established,  only  to  supply  a  secondary  want ; 
and  that  tribe  was  very  far  from  obtaining  all  the 
powers  which  we  are  apt  to  attribute  to  it ;  it  did  not 
make,  nor  develope  the  laws;  it  did  not  judge  or 
govern ;  all  its  members,  even  the  high  priest  him- 
self, were  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Elders  of  the 
nation,  or  of  a  Senate  legally  assembled. 


Vlll 

Intimately  connected  with  these  rights  of  the 
people  was  the  liberty  of  speech ;  and  Mr.  Salvador, 
in  his  chapter  on  the  Public  Orators  and  Prophets, 
maintains,  and  in  the  opinion  of  M.  Dupin,  proves 
clearly,  that  in  no  nation  was  the  liberty  of  speech 
ever  so  unlimited,  as  among  the  Hebrews.  Accord- 
ingly he  observes  —  "  What  an  additional  difference 
was  this  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians  ! 
Among  the  latter,  the  mass  of  the  people  did  not 
dare,  without  incurring  the  hazard  of  the  most  ter- 
rible punishment,  to  utter  a  word  on  affairs  of  state ; 
it  was  Harpocrates,  the  god  of  silence  with  his  fin- 
ger on  his  closed  lips,  who  was  their  God  ;  in  Israel, 
it  was  the  right  of  speech. 

But  we  forbear  any  further  reflections,  and  submit 
this  remarkable  performance  to  our  readers.  Those, 
who  are  familiar  with  the  animated  tone  of  French 
writers,  will  perhaps  discover  in  this  translation  some 
loss  of  the  fire  and  intensity  of  the  original ;  but  the 
translator's  purpose  will  be  effected,  if  his  version 
shall  be  found  to  be  a  faithful  one. 

September3, 1839. 


ANALYSIS 


OF  THE  CHAPTER  OF  MR.  SALVADOR,  ENTI- 
TLED "  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  JUSTICE  " 
AMONG    THE    JEWS.* 

Mr.  Salvador  has  discussed  with  par- 
ticular care  whatever  relates  to  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  among  the  Jewish 
people.  We  shall  dwell  upon  this  chap- 
ter, which  undoubtedly  will  most  interest 
our  readers. 

Judicare  and  judicari,  to  judge  and  to 
be  judged,  express  the  rights  of  every  He- 

*  This  Analysis  first  appeared  in  the  Gazette  des 
Tribunaux. 

1 


brew  citizen ;  that  is,  no  one  could  be  con- 
demned without  a  judgment,  and  every 
one  might,  in  his  turn,  be  called  upon  to 
sit  in  judgment,  upon  others.  Some  ex- 
ceptions to  this  principle  are  explained  ; 
but  they  do  not  affect  the  rule.  In  mat- 
ters of  mere  interest  each  party  chose  a 
judge,  and  these  two  chose  a  third  person. 
If  a  discussion  arose  as  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  a  law,  they  carried  it  to  the  lower 
council  of  Elders,  and  from  thence  to  the 
Great  Council  at  Jerusalem.  Each  town 
of  more  than  one  hundred  and  twenty 
families  was  to  have  its  lower  council, 
consisting  of  twenty-three  members ;  and 
these  had  jurisdiction  in  criminal  cases. 

The  expressions,  he  shall  die,  he  shall 
be  cut  off  from  the  people,  which  are  so 
often  used  in  the  Mosaic  law,  embrace 
three  very  different  significations,  which 
we  are  accustomed  to  confound.  They 
indicate  the  suffering  of  death  as  a  pun- 


ishment,  civil  death,  and  that  premature 
death,  with  which  an  individual  is  natural- 
ly threatened,  who  departs  from  those  rules 
which  are  useful  to  the  nation  and  to  the 
individual  himself.  Civil  death  is  the  last 
degree  of  separation,  or  excommunication  ; 
it  is  pronounced,  as  a  judicial  punishment, 
by  the  assembly  of  the  judges. 

There  were  three  kinds  of  separation ; 
which  Mr.  Salvador  compares  to  the  three 
degrees  of  civil  excommunication  provided 
for  in  the  French  Penal  Code,  and  which 
condemn  the  criminal  to  hard  labor  either 
for  life  or  for  a  term  of  years,  or  to  certain 
correctional  punishments.  But  the  He- 
brew excommunication  had  this  advan- 
tage, that  the  party  never  lost  all  hope  of 
regaining  his  original  standing. 

The  Hebrew  lawyers,  in  relation  to  the 
punishment  of  death,  maintained  opinions, 
which  deserve  to  be  quoted  :  — 


"  A  tribunal,  which  condems  to  death 
once  in  seven  years,  may  be  called  san- 
guinary."—  "  It  deserves  this  appellation, 
says  doctor  Eliezer,  when  it  pronounces  a 
like  sentence  once  in  seventy  years." — "  If 
we  had  been  members  of  the  high  court, 
say  the  doctors  Tyrphon  and  Akiba,  we 
should  never  have  condemned  a  man  to 
death."  Simeon,  the  son  of  Gamaliel,  re- 
plied— "  Would  not  that  be  an  abuse? 
Would  you  not  have  been  afraid  of  multi- 
plying crimes  in  Israel  ?  "  Mr.  Salvador 
answers  —  "  No,  certainly  ;  far  from  less- 
ening their  number,  the  severity  of  the 
punishment  increases  it,  by  giving  a  more 
resolute  character  to  the  men  who  are  able 
to  brave  it ;  and,  at  the  present  day,  how 
many  intelligent  minds  range  themselves 
on  the  side  of  Akiba  and  Tyrphon  !  How 
many  consciences  refuse  to  participate,  in 
any  manner,  in  the  death  of  a  man  !  The 
flowing  of  blood,  the    multitude   excited 


by  an  unbecoming  curiosity,  the  victim 
dragged  in  triumph  to  the  horrible  altar, 
the  impossibility  of  repairing  a  mistake, 
(from  which  human  wisdom  is  never  ex- 
empt) the  dread  of  one  day  seeing  a  de- 
parted shade  rising  up  and  saying,  "  /  was 
innocent"  the  facility  which  modern  na- 
tions have  of  expelling  from  among  them 
the  man  whose  presence  pollutes  them  — 
the  influence  of  general  depravity  on  the 
production  of  crimes  —  and  finally  the  ab- 
surd contrast  of  the  whole  of  society, 
while  in  possession  of  strength,  intelli- 
gence, and  arms,  opposing  itself  to  an  in- 
dividual wretch  (who  has  been  drawn  on 
by  want,  by  passion,  or  by  ignorance)  and 
yet  finding  no  other  means  of  redress  than 
by  exceeding  him  in  cruelty  —  all  these 
things,  and  many  others,  have  so  deeply 
penetrated  the  minds  of  all  ranks  of  peo- 
ple, that  there  will  one  day  proceed  from 
them  the  most  striking  proof  of  the  power 


of  m  :  the   laws  :  for  the   law  will 

ged   by  the    samj  that   we 

shall  not  find  any  person,  who  will  consent 

I  fed  honored  in  having  maintained  the 

same  opinion  in  my  Obser.  :m- 

inal  Legislation;  but   I  solicit  those,  who 

9«    this      lestion      senssed  in  its 

the  profound  reflec- 
tions which  the  Duke  de  Broglie  has  just 
:>n  the  subject,  in  the  last  num- 
ber oi  the  Revue  Frangaise  (for  October. 
1826 

The   whole  criminal   procedure   in   the 
Pentateuch    rests    npon    :hree    princ: 
which  may  be  thus  expressed;  publicity 
of    the    trial,    entire    liberty    of    defence 

be    accused:    and  a  guar:: 
against    the    dangers    of    testimony.     A:- 
cording  to  the  Hebrew  text  one  witness 
is  no  witness  ;  there  must  be  at  least  two 
or  three  who  know  the  fact.     The  win. 


who  testifies  against  a  man.  must  swear 
that  he  speaks  the  truth  ;  the  judges  then 
proceed  to  take  exact  information  of  the 
matter ;  and.  if  it  is  found  that  the  wit- 
ness has  sworn  falsely,  they  compel  him 
to  undergo  the  punishment  to  which  he 
would  have  exposed  his  neighbor.  The 
discussion  between  the  accuser  and  the 
accused  is  conducted  before  the  whole 
sembly  of  the  people.  TVhen  a  man  is 
condemned  to  death,  those  witnesses,  whose 
evidence'  decided  the  sentence,  inflict  the 
first  blows,  in  order  to  add  the  last  degree 
of  certainty  to  their  evidence.  Hence  the 
expression  —  Let  him  among  you.  who  is 
without  sin.  cast  the  first  stone. 

If  we  pursue  their  application  of  these 
fundamental  rules  in  practice,  we  shall  find 
that  a  trial  proceeded  in  the  following 
manner. 

On  the  day  of  the  trial,  the  executive 
officers  of  justice  caused  the  accused  per- 


8 

son  to  make  his  appearance.  At  the  feet 
of  the  Elders  were  placed  men,  who  under 
the  name  of  auditors,  or  candidates,  fol- 
lowed regularly  the  sittings  of  the  Coun- 
cil. The  papers  in  the  case  were  read  ; 
and  the  witnesses  were  called  in  succes- 
sion. The  president  addressed  this  exhor- 
tation to  each  of  them  :  "  It  is  not  conjec- 
tures, or  whatever  public  rumor  has  brought 
to  thee,  that  we  ask  of  thee  ;  consider  that 
a  great  responsibility  rests  upon  thee  ;  that 
we  are  not  occupied  by  an  affair,  like  a 
case  of  pecuniary  interest,  in  which  the 
injury  may  be  repaired.  If  thou  causest 
the  condemnation  of  a  person  unjustly  ac- 
cused, his  blood,  and  the  blood  of  ail  the 
posterity  of  him,  of  whom  thou  wilt  have 
deprived  the  earth,  will  fall  upon  thee  ; 
God  will  demand  of  thee  an  account,  as 
he  demanded  of  Cain  an  account  of  the 
blood  of  Abel.     Speak." 


9 

A  woman  could  not  be  a  witness,  be- 
cause she  would  not  have  the  courage  to 
give  the  first  blow  to  the  condemned  per- 
son ;  nor  could  a  child,  that  is  irresponsi- 
ble, nor  a  slave,  nor  a  man  of  bad  charac- 
ter, nor  one  whose  infirmities  prevent  the 
full  enjoyment  of  his  physical  and  moral 
faculties.  The  simple  confession  of  an 
individual  against  himself  or  the  decla- 
ration of  a  prophet,  however  renowned, 
would  not  decide  a  condemnation.  The 
Doctors  say  —  "  We  hold  it  as  fundamen- 
tal, that  no  one  shall  prejudice  himself  If 
a  man  accuses  himself  before  a  tribunal, 
we  must  not  believe  him,  unless  the  fact  is 
attested  by  two  other  witnesses ;  and  it  is 
proper  to  remark,  that  the  punishment  of 
death  inflicted  upon  Achan,  in  the  time  of 
Joshua  *  was  an  exception,  occasioned  by 
the  nature  of  the  circumstances  ;  for  our 

*  Joshua  vii.  19,  &c. 


10 

law  does  not  condemn  upon  the  simple 
confession  of  the  accused,  nor  upon  the 
declaration  of  one  prophet  alone." 

The  witnesses  were  to  attest  to  the  iden- 
tity of  the  party,  and  to  depose  to  the 
month,  day,  hour,  and  circumstances  of 
the  crime.  After  an  examination  of  the 
proofs,  those  judges,  who  believed  the 
party  innocent,  stated  their  reasons  j  those 
who  believed  him  guilty  spoke  afterwards, 
and  with  the  greatest  moderation.  If  one 
of  the  auditors,  or  candidates,  was  en- 
trusted by  the  accused  with  his  defence, 
or  if  he  wished  in  his  own  name  to  pre- 
sent any  elucidations  in  favor  of  innocence, 
he  was  admitted  to  the  seat,  from  which 
he  addressed  the  judges  and  the  people. 
But  this  liberty  was  not  granted  to  him,  if 
his  opinion  was  in  favor  of  condemning. 
Lastly  ;  when  the  accused  person  himself 
wished  to  speak,  they  gave  the  most  pro- 
found attention.    When  the  discussion  was 


11 

finished,  one  of  the  judges  recapitulated 
the  case  j  they  removed  all  the  spectators ; 
two  scribes  took  down  the  votes  of  the 
judges  ;  one  of  them  noted  those  which 
were  in  favor  of  the  accused,  and  the 
other,  those  which  condemned  him,  Elev- 
en votes,  out  of  twenty-three,  were  suffi- 
cient to  acquit ;  but  it  required  thirteen  to 
convict.  If  any  of  the  judges  stated,  that 
they  were  not  sufficiently  informed,  there 
were  added  two  more  Elders,  and  then  two 
others  in  succession,  till  they  formed  a 
council  of  sixty-two,  which  was  the  num- 
ber of  the  Grand  Council.  If  a  majority 
of  votes  acquitted,  the  accused  was  dis- 
charged instantly  :  if  he  was  to  be  pun- 
ished, the  judges  postponed  pronouncing 
sentence  till  the  third  day ;  during  the  in- 
termediate day,  they  could  not  be  occu- 
pied with  any  thing  but  the  cause,  and 
they  abstained  from  eating  freely,  and  from 
wine,  liquors,  and  every  thing  which  might 


12 

render  their  minds  less  capable  of  reflec- 
tion. 

On  the  morning  of  the  third  day  they 
returned  to  the  judgment  seat.  Each 
judge,  who  had  not  changed  his  opinion, 
said,  /  continue  of  the  same  opinion  and 
condemn ;  anyone,  who  at  first  condemned, 
might  at  this  sitting  acquit ;  but  he  who 
had  once  acquitted  was  not  allowed  to  con- 
demn. If  a  majority  condemned,  two  mag- 
istrates immediately  accompanied  the  con- 
demned person  to  the  place  of  punishment. 
The  Elders  did  not  descend  from  their 
seats  ;  they  placed  at  the  entrance  of  the 
judgment  hall  an  officer  of  justice  with  a 
small  flag  in  his  hand  ;  a  second  officer,  on 
horseback,  followed  the  prisoner,  and  con- 
stantly kept  looking  back  to  the  place  of 
departure.  During  this  interval,  if  any 
person  came  to  announce  to  the  Elders  any 
new  evidence  favorable  to  the  prisoner, 
the   first  officer  waved  his   flag,  and  the 


13 

second  one,  as  soon  as  he  perceived  it, 
brought  back  the  prisoner.  If  the  prisoner 
declared  to  the  magistrates,  that  he  recol- 
lected some  reasons  which  had  escaped 
him,  they  brought  him  before  the  judges 
no  less  than  five  times.  If  no  incident 
occurred,  the  procession  advanced  slowly, 
preceded  by  a  herald  who,  in  a  loud  voice, 
addressed  the  people  thus :  "  This  man 
(stating  his  name  and  surname)  is  led  to 
punishment  for  such  a  crime ;  the  wit- 
nesses, who  have  sworn  against  him  are 
such  and  such  persons ;  if  any  one  has 
evidence  to  give  in  his  favor,  let  him  come 
forth  quickly." 

It  was  in  consequence  of  this  rule  that 
the  youthful  Daniel  caused  the  procession 
to  go  back,  which  was  leading  Susanna 
to  punishment,  and  he  himself  ascended 
the  seat  of  justice  to  put  some  new  ques- 
tions to  the  witnesses. 


14 

At  some  distance  from  the  place  of  pun- 
ishment, they  urged  the  prisoner  to  confess 
his  crime,  and  they  made  him  drink  a  stu- 
pefying beverage,  in  order  to  render  the 
approach  of  death  less  terrible.* 

By  this  mere  analysis  of  a  part  of 
Mr.  Salvador's  work  we  may  judge  of  the 
extreme  interest  of  the  whole.  His  prin- 
cipal object  has  been,  to  make  apparent  the 
mutual  aids  which  history,  philosophy,  and 
legislation  afford  in  explaining  the  institu- 
tions of  the  Jewish  people.  His  book  is  a 
scientific  work,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
work  of  taste.  His  notes  indicate  vast 
reading ;  and  in  the  choice  of  his  citations 
he  gives  proofs  of    his  critical  skill   and 

*  By  this,  says  Father  Lamy,  we  may  understand 
what  the  mixture  of  wine  and  myrrh  was,  which  they 
presented  to  Jesus  on  the  cross,  and  which  he  would 
not  drink.  Introd.  to  the  Reading  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, chap.  vi.  (Note  of  Mr.  Salvador,  Book  iv. 
ch.  2.) 


15 

discrimination.  Mr.  Salvador  belongs,  by 
his  age,  to  that  new  generation,  which  is 
distinguished  as  much  by  its  application 
to  solid  studies,  as  by  elevation  and  gene- 
rosity of  sentiment. 


TRIAL    OF    JESUS 


REFUTATION  OF  THE  CHAPTER  OF  MR.   SALVA- 
DOR, ENTITLED   "  THE  TRIAL  AND  CONDEM- 


The  chapter,  in  which  Mr.  Salvador 
treats  of  the  Administration  of  Justice 
among  the  Hebrews,  is  altogether  theoret- 
ical. He  makes  an  exposition  of  the  law 
—  that  things,  in  order  to  be  conformable 
to  rule,  must  be  transacted  in  a  certain 
mode.  In  all  this  I  have  not  contradicted 
him,  but  have  let  him  speak  for  himself. 

In  the  subsequent  chapter  the  author  an- 
nounces :  "  That  according  to  this  exposi- 
tion of  judicial  proceedings  he  is  going  to 
follow  out  the  application  of  them  to  the 
2 


18  TRIAL  AND 

most  memorable  trial  in  all  history,  that  of 
Jesus  Christ."  Accordingly  the  chapter  is 
entitled :  The  Trial  and  Condemnation 
of  Jesus. 

The  author  first  takes  care  to  inform  us 
under  what  point  of  view  he  ■  intends  to 
give  an  account  of  that  accusation  :  "  That 
we  ought  to  lament  the  blindness  of  the 
Hebrews  for  not  having  recognised  a  God 
in  Jesus,  is  a  point  which  I  do  not  examine." 
(There  is  another  thing  also,  which  he 
says  he  shall  not  examine.)  "But,  when 
they  discovered  in  him  only  a  citizen,  did 
they  try  him  according  to  existing  laws 
and  formalities  ?  " 

The  question  being  thus  stated,  Mr.  Sal- 
vador goes  over  all  the  various  aspects  of 
the  accusation  ;  and  his  conclusion  is,  that 
the  procedure  was  perfectly  regular,  and  the 
condemnation  perfectly  appropriate  to  the 
act  committed.  "Now,"  says  he,  (p.  87,) 
"  the  Senate,  having  adjudged  that  Jesus, 


CONDEMNATION  OF  JESUS.  19 

the  son  of  Joseph,  born  in  Bethlehem,  had 
profaned  the  name  of  God  by  usurping  it 
himself,  though  a  simple  citizen,  applied  to 
him  the  law  against  blasphemy,  the  law 
in  the  13th  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  and 
verse  20th,  chapter  ISth,  conformably  to 
which  every  prophet,  even  one  that  per- 
forms miracles,  is  to  be  punished  when  he 
speaks  of  a  God  unknown  to  the  Hebrews 
or  their  fathers." 

This  conclusion  is  formed  to  please  the 
followers  of  the  Jewish  law  ;  it  is  wholly 
for  their  benefit,  and  the  evident  object  is, 
to  justify  them  from  the  reproach  of  de- 
icide. 

We  will,  however,  avoid  treating  this 
grave  subject  in  a  theological  point  of 
view.  As  to  myself,  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Man-  God ;  but  it  is  not  with  arguments 
drawn  from  my  religion  and  my  creed,  that 
I  intend  to  combat  the  statement  and  the 
conclusion  of  Mr.  Salvador.     The  present 


20  TRIAL  AND 

age  would  charge  me  with  being  intol- 
erant ;  and  this  is  a  reproach  which  I  will 
never  incur.  Besides,  I  do  not  wish  to 
give  to  the  enemies  of  Christianity  the 
advantage  of  making  the  outcry,  that 
we  are  afraid  to  enter  into  a  discussion 
with  them,  and  that  we  wish  to  crush 
rather  than  to  convince  them.  Having 
thus  contented  myself  with  declaring  my 
own  faith,  as  Mr.  Salvador  has  let  us 
clearly  understand  his,  I  shall  also  examine 
the  question  under  a  merely  human  point 
of  view,  and  proceed  to  inquire,  with  him, 
"Whether  Jesus  Christ,  considered  as  a 
simple  citizen,  was  tried  according  to  the 
existing  laws  and  formalities." 

The  catholic  religion  itself  warrants  me 
in  this  ;  it  is  not  a  mere  fiction  ;  for  God 
willed,  that  Jesus  should  be  clothed  in  the 
forms  of  humanity  (et  homo  f actus  est), 
and  that  he  should  undergo  the  lot  and 
sufferings  of  humanity.     The  son  of  God, 


CONDEMNATION  OF  JESUS. 


21 


as  to  his  moral  state  and  his  holy  spirit,  he 
was  also,  in  reality,  the  Son  of  Man,  for 
the  purpose  of  accomplishing  the  mission 
which  he  came  upon  earth  to  fulfil. 

This  being  the  state  of  the  question, 
then,  I  enter  upon  my  subject ;  and  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  affirm,  because  I  will  prove 
it,  that,  upon  examining  all  the  circum- 
stances of  this  great  trial,  we  shall  be  very 
far  from  discovering  in  it  the  application 
of  those  legal  maxims,  which  are  the 
safeguard  of  the  rights  of  accused  persons, 
and  of  which  Mr.  Salvador,  in  his  chapter 
On  the  Administration  of  Justice,  has 
made  a  seductive  exposition. 

The  accusation  of  Jesus,  instigated  by 
the  hatred  of  the  priests  and  the  Pharisees, 
and  presented  at  first  as  a  charge  of  sacri- 
lege, but  afterwards  converted  into  a  polit- 
ical crime  and  an  offence  against  the  state, 
was  marked,  in  all  its  aspects,  with  the 
foulest  acts  of  violence  and  perfidy.     It 


22  TRIAL  AND 

was  not  so  much  a  trial  environed  with 
legal  forms,  as  a  real  passion,  or  prolonged 
suffering,  in  which  the  imperturbable  gen- 
tleness of  the  victim  displays  more  strongly 
the  unrelenting  ferocity  of  his  persecutors. 
When  Jesus  appeared  among  the  Jews, 
that  people  was  but  the  shadow  of  itself. 
Broken  down  by  more  than  one  subjuga- 
tion, divided  by  factions  and  irreconcila- 
ble sects,  they  had  in  the  last  resort  been 
obliged  to  succumb  to  the  Roman  power 
and  surrender  their  own  sovereignty.  Je- 
rusalem, having  become  a  mere  appendage 
to  the  province  of  Syria,  saw  within  its 
walls  an  imperial  garrison ;  Pilate  com- 
manded there,  in  the  name  of  Cassar  ;  and 
the  late  people  of  God  were  groaning  under 
the  double  tyranny  of  a  conqueror,  whose 
power  they  abhorred  and  whose  idolatry 
they  detested,  and  of  a  priesthood  that  ex- 
erted itself  to  keep  them  under  the  rigor- 
ous bonds  of  a  religious  fanaticism. 


CONDEMNATION  OF  JESUS.  23 

Jesus  Christ  deplored  the  misfortunes  of 
his  country.  How  often  did  he  weep  for 
Jerusalem  !  Read  in  Bossuet's  Politics 
drawn  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the 
admirable  chapter  entitled,  Jesus  Christ 
the  good  citizen.  He  recommended  to 
his  countrymen  union,  which  constitutes 
the  strength  of  states.  "  O  Jerusalem,  Je- 
rusalem, (said  he,)  thou  that  killest  the 
prophets  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent 
unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gath- 
ered thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen 
gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings, 
and  ye  would  not !  " 

He  was  supposed  to  be  not  favorable  to 
the  Romans ;  but  he  only  loved  his  own 
countrymen  more.  Witness  the  address  of 
the  Jews,  who,  in  order  to  induce  him  to 
restore  to  the  centurion  a  sick  servant  that 
was  dear  to  him,  used  as  the  most  power- 
ful argument  these  words  —  that  he  was 
worthy  for  whom  he  should  do  this,  for 


i 

I  \ 


24  TRIAL  AND 

he   loveth   our    nation.     And   Jesus  went 
with  them.     Luke  vii.  4,  5. 

Touched  with  the  distresses  of  the  na- 
tion, Jesus  comforted  them  by  holding  up 
to  them  the  hope  of  another  life  ;  he 
alarmed  the  great,  the  rich,  and  the  haugh- 
ty, by  the  prospect  of  a  final  judgment,  at 
which  every  man  would  be  judged  not  ac- 
cording to  his  rank,  but  his  works.  He 
was  desirous  of  again  bringing  back  man 
to  his  original  dignity  ;  he  spoke  to  him  of 
his  duties,  but  at  the  same  time  of  his 
rights.  The  people  heard  him  with  avid- 
ity, and  followed  him  with  eagerness  ;  his 
words  affected  them  ;  his  hand  healed  their 
diseases,  and  his  moral  teaching  instructed 
them  ;  he  preached,  and  practised  one  vir- 
tue till  then  unknown,  and  which  belongs 
i  to  him  alone  —  charity.  This  celebrity, 
however,  and  these  wonders  excited  envy. 
The  partisans  of  the  ancient  theocracy 
were  alarmed   at   the   new  doctrine;   the 


CONDEMMATION  OF  JESUS.  25 

chief  priests  felt  that  their  power  was 
threatened  ;  the  pride  of  the  Pharisees  was 
humbled ;  the  scribes  came  in  as  their 
auxiliaries,  and  the  destruction  of  Jesus 
was  resolved  upon. 

Now,  if  his  conduct  was  reprehensible, 
if  it  afforded  grounds  for  a  legal  accusation, 
why  was  not  that  course  taken  openly  ? 
Why  not  try  him  for  the  acts  com- 
mitted by  him,  and  for  his  public  discours- 
es ?  Why  employ  against  him  subter- 
fuges, artifice,  perfidy  and  violence  ?  for 
such  was  the  mode  of  proceeding  against 
Jesus. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  subject,  and  look 
at  the  narratives  which  have  come  down 
to  us.  Let  us,  with  Mr.  Salvador,  open 
the  books  of  the  Gospels ;  for  he  does  not 
object  to  that  testimony  ;  nay,  he  relies 
upon  it :  "  It  is  by  the  Gospels  themselves," 
says  he,  "that  I  shall  establish  all  the 
facts.'1 


26  TRIAL   OF  JESUS. 

Ill  truth,  how  can  we  (except  by  contra- 
ry evidence,  of  which  there  is  none)  re- 
fuse to  place  confidence  in  an  historian, 
who  tells  us,  as  Saint  John  does,  with  af- 
fecting simplicity  :  "  He  that  saw  it  bare 
record,  and  his  record  is  true  ;  and  he 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  might 
believe."     John  xix.  35. 


S  ECTION     I 


SPIES,    OR    INFORMERS. 


Who  will  not  be  surprised  to  find  in  this 
case  the  odious  practice  of  employing  hired 
informers  ?  Branded  with  infamy,  as  they 
are  in  modern  times,  they  will  be  still  more 
so  when  we  carry  back  their  origin  to  the 
trial  of  Christ.  It  will  be  seen  presently, 
whether  I  have  not. properly  characterized 


SPIES,   OR  INFORMERS.  27 


by  the  name  of  hired  informers  those  em- 
issaries, whom  the  chief  priests  sent  out  to 
be  about  Jesus. 

We  read  in  the  evangelist  Luke,  chap. 
xx.  20  :  Et  observantes  miserunt  insidia- 
tores,  qui  se  justos  simularent,  ut  cape- 
rent  eum  in  sermone,  et  traderent  ilium 
principatui  et  potestati  prcesidis.  I  will 
not  translate  this  text  myself,  but  will  take 
the  language  of  a  translator  whose  accu- 
racy is  well  known,  Mr.  De  Sacy  :  "  As 
they  only  sought  occasions  for  his  destruc- 
tion, they  sent  to  him  apostate  persons, 
who  feigned  themselves  just  men,  in  order 
to  take  hold  of  his  words,  that  they  might 
deliver  him  unto  the  magistrate  and  into 
the  power  of  the  governor."  And  Mr.  De 
Sacy  adds  —  "if  there  should  escape  from 
him  the  least  word  against  the  public  au- 
thorities." 

This  first  artifice  has  escaped  the  sagaci- 
ty of  Mr.  Salvador. 


28  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

SECTION     II. 

THE  CORRUPTION  AND  TREACHERY  OF  JUDAS. 

According  to  Mr.  Salvador,  the  senate, 
as  he  calls  it,  did  not  commence  their  pro- 
ceedings by  arresting  Jesus,  as  would  be 
done  at  the  present  day ;  but  they  began 
by  passing  a  preliminary  decree,  that  he 
should  be  arrested  ;  and  he  cites,  in  proof 
of  his  assertion,  St.  John  xi.  53,  54,  and 
St.  Matthew  xxvi.  4,  5. 

But  St.  John  says  nothing  of  this  pre- 
tended decree.  He  speaks,  too,  not  of  a 
public  sitting,  but  of  a  consultation  held 
by  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees,  who 
did  not,  to  my  knowledge,  constitute  a  ju- 
dicial tribunal  among  the  Jews.  "  Then 
gathered  the  chief  priests  and  the  Phari- 
sees a  council,  and  said,  What  do  we  ?  for 
this  man  doeth  many  miracles."     John  xi. 


THE  TREACHERY  OF  JUDAS.  29 

47.  They  add:  "If  we  let  him  thus 
alone,  all  men  will  believe  on  him,"  — 
which  imported  also,  in  their  minds,  and 
they  will  no  longer  believe  in  us.  Now, 
in  this,  I  can  readily  perceive  the  fear  of 
seeing  the  morals  and  doctrines  of  Jesus 
prevail ;  but  where  is  the  preliminary  judg- 
ment, or  decree  ?  I  cannot  discover  it. 

"  And  one  of  them,  named  Caiaphas, 
being  the  high  priest  that  same  year,  said 
unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing  at  all,  nor 
consider,  that  it  is  expedient  for  us,  that 

one  man  should  die  for  the  people, 

and  he  prophesied,  that  Jesus  should  die 
for  the  nation  of  the  Jews."  But  to  proph- 
esy is  not  to  pass  judgment ;  and  the  indi- 
vidual opinion  of  Caiaphas,  who  was  only 
one  among  them,  was  not  the  opinion  of 
all,  nor  a  judgment  of  the  senate.  We, 
therefore,  still  find  a  judgment  wanting  : 
and  we  only  observe,  that  the  priests  and 
Pharisees  are  stimulated  by  a  violent  hatred 


30  TRIAL  OF   JESUS. 

of  Jesus,  and  that  "  from  that  day  forth 
they  took  counsel  together  for  to  put  him 
to  death  ;  ut  inter jicerent  eum."  John  xi. 
53. 

The  authority  of  St.  John,  then,  is  di- 
rectly in  contradiction  of  the  assertion , 
that  there  was  an  order  of  arrest  previous- 
ly passed  by  a  regular  tribunal. 

St.  Matthew,  in  relating  the  same  facts, 
says,  that  the  chief  priests  assembled  at  the 
palace  of  the  high  priest,  who  was  called 
Caiaphas,  and  there  held  counsel  together. 
But  what  counsel  ?  and  what  was  the 
result  of  it  ?  Was  it  to  issue  an  order  of 
arrest  against  Jesus,  that  they  might  hear 
him  and  then  pass  sentence  ?  Not  at  all ; 
but  they  held  counsel  together,  "  that  they 
might  take  Jesus  by  subtilty,  or  fraud,  and 
kill  him;  consilium  fecerunt,  ut  Jesum 
dolo  tenerent  et  occiderent.  Matt.  xxvi. 
5.  Now  in  the  Latin  language,  a  language 
perfectly  well  constituted   in  every  thing 


THE  TREACHERY  OF  JUDAS.  31 

relating  to  terms  of  the  law,  the  words 
occidere  and  interficere  were  never  em- 
ployed to  express  the  act  of  passing  sen- 
tence, or  judgment  of  death,  but  simply 
to  signify  murder  or  assassination.* 

This  fraud,  by  the  aid  of  which  they 
were  to  get  Jesus  into  their  power,  was 
nothing  but  the  bargain  made  between  the 
chief  priests  and  Judas. 

Judas,  one  of  the  twelve,  goes  to  find 
the  chief  priests,  and   says  to  them,  What 

*  As  was  that  of  Stephen,  whom  the  same  priests 
caused  to  be  massacred  by  the  populace,  without  a 
previous  sentence  of  the  law.  Occidere  :  Non  occi- 
des,  thou  shalt  not  kill.  Deut.  v.  17.  Veneno  homi- 
nes occidere.  Cic.  pro  Itoscio,  61.  Virginiam  filiam 
sua  manu  occidit  Virginius.  Cic.  de  Finib.  107.  Non 
hominem  occidi.  Horat.  I.  Epist.  17,  10.  Inermem 
occidere.  Ovid.  ii.  Fast.  139.  Ixterficere  :  Feras 
interficere.  Lucret.  lib.  v.  251.  Interfectus  in  acie. 
Cic.  de  Finib.  103.  Csesaris  interfectores.  Brutus 
Ciceroni,  16,  8.  Interfectorem  Gracchi.  Cic.  de  Claris 
Orrato.  66. 


TRIAL   OF   JE- 

"will  ye  give  me.  and  I  will  deliver  him 
unto  you  ?  Matt.  xxvi.  14.  15.  And  they 
covenanted  with  him  for  thirty  pieces  of 
silver !  Jesus,  who  foresaw  his  treachery, 
warned  him  of  it  mildly,  in  the  midst  of 
the  Last  Supper,  where  the  voice  of  his 
master,  in  the  presence  of  his  brethren, 
should  have  touched  him  and  awakened 
his  reflections  !  But  not  so  :  wholly  ab- 
sorbed in  his  reward.  Judas  placed  himself 
at  the  head  of  a  gang  of  servants,  to  whom 
he  was  to  point  out  Jesus  :  and,  then,  by 
a  kiss  consummated  his  treachery  !  # 

*  Will  it  be  believed,  that  TertulliaD  and  St.  Irenaeas 

i  bliged  to  refute  seriously  some   writers  of  their 

"ho  considered  the  conduct  of  Judas  not  only 

excusable,  but  worthy  of  admiration  and  highly  mer- 

itorious.  ';  becar-  Ike  immei- 

"hich  he  had  rendered   to   the  human  race  by 
preparing  their  redemption !     In  the  same  max: 
a  certain  period,  we  ha  -nderers  of  the  public 

monev  make  a  merit  of  their  conduct,  because  in  that 
_ey  had  weakened  the  usurpation  and  prepared 
the  way  for  the  triumph  of  legitimacy. 


RESISTANCE  TO   AN  ARMED   FORCE.  33 

Is  it  thus  that  a  judicial  decree  was  to  be 
executed,  if  there  had  really  been  one  made 
for  the  arrest  of  Jesus  : 


SECTIOX     III. 

PERSONAL     LIBERTY.  RESISTANCE     TO     AN 

ARMED  FORCE. 

The  act  was  done  in  the  night  time. 
After  having  celebrated  the  Supper.  Jesus 
had  conducted  his  disciples  to  the  Mount 
of  Olives.  He  prayed  fervently  :  but  they 
fell  asleep. 

Jesus  awakes  them,  with  a  gentle  re- 
proof for  their  weakness,  and  warns 
them  that  the  moment  is  approaching. 
••  Rise,  let  us  be  going  :  behold  he  is  at 
hand  that  doth  betray  me."  Matt.  xxvi.  46. 

Judas  was  not  alone  ;  in  his  suite  there 
3 


34  TRIAL  OF   JESUS. 

was  a  kind  of  ruffian  band,  almost  entirely- 
composed  of  servants  of  the  high  priest, 
but  whom  Mr.  Salvador  honors  with  the 
title  of  the  legal  soldiery.  If  in  the  crowd 
there  were  any  Roman  soldiers,  they  were 
there  as  spectators,  and  without  having 
been  legally  called  on  duty  ;  for  the  Roman 
commanding  officer,  Pilate,  had  not  yet 
heard  the  affair  spoken  of. 

This  personal  seizure  of  Jesus  had  so 
much  the  appearance  of  a  forcible  arrest, 
an  illegal  act  of  violence,  that  his  disciples 
made  preparation  to  repel  force  by  force. 

Malchus,  the  insolent  servant  of  the  high 
priest,  having  shown  himself  the  most 
eager  to  rush  upon  Jesus,  Peter,  not  less 
zealous  for  his  own  master,  cut  off  the 
servant's  right  ear. 

This  resistance  might  have  been  contin- 
ued with  success,  if  Jesus  had  not  imme- 
diately interfered.  But  what  proves  that 
Peter,  even  while  causing  bloodshed,  was 


RESISTANCE  TO  AN  ARMED  FORCE.    35 

not  resisting  a  legal  order,  a  legal  judgment 
or  decree,  (which  would  have  made  his  re- 
sistance an  act  of  rebellion  by  an  armed  force 
against  a  judicial  order,)  is  this — that  he 
was  not  arrested,  either  at  the  moment  or 
afterwards,  at  the  house  of  the  high  priest, 
to  which  he  followed  Jesus,  and  where  he 
was  most  distinctly  recognised  by  the  maid 
servant  of  the  high  priest,  and  even  by  a 
relative  of  Malchus. 

Jesus  alone  was  arrested  ;  and  although 
he  had  not  individually  offered  any  active 
resistance,  and  had  even  restrained  that  of 
his  disciples,  they  bound  him  as  a  malefac- 
tor ;  which  was  a  criminal  degree  of  rigor, 
since  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  single 
man  by  a  numerous  band  of  persons  armed 
with  swords  and  staves  it  was  not  neces- 
sary. "  Be  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief 
with  swords  and  staves  ?  "    Luke  xxii.  52. 


36  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

SECTION   IV. 

OTHER     IRREGULARITIES  IN    THE     ARREST.  

SEIZURE   OF  THE  PERSON. 

They  dragged  Jesus  along  with  them  ; 
and,  instead  of  taking  him  directly  to  the 
proper  magistrate,  they  carried  him  before 
Annas,  who  had  no  other  character  than 
that  of  being  father  in  law  to  the  high 
priest.  John  xviii.  13.  Now,  if  this  was 
only  for  the  purpose  of  letting  him  be  seen 
by  him,  such  a  curiosity  was  not  to  be 
gratified  ;  it  was  a  vexatious  proceeding, 
an  irregularity. 

From  the  house  of  Annas  they  led  him 
to  that  of  the  high  priest ;  all  this  time 
being  bound.  John  xviii.  24.  They 
placed  him  in  the  court  yard  ;  it  was  cold, 
and  they  made  a  fire  ;  it  was  in  the  night 
time,   but  by  the  light  of  the  fire  Peter 


ILLEGAL  SEIZURE   OF  THE  PERSON.         37 

was  recognised  by  the  people  of  the  pal- 
ace. 

Now  the  Jewish  law  prohibited  all  pro- 
ceedings by  night ;  here,  therefore,  there 
was  another  infraction  of  the  law. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  his  person 
being  forcibly  seized  and  detained  in  a  pri- 
vate house,  and  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  servants,  in  the  midst  of  a  court,  how 
was  Jesus  treated  ?  St.  Luke  says,  the 
men  that  held  Jesus  mocked  him  and  smote 
him ;  and  when  they  had  blindfolded  him, 
they  struck  him  on  the  face,  and  asked 
him,  saying,  Prophesy,  who  is  it  that  smote 
thee  ?  *  And  many  other  things  blasphe- 
mously spake  they  against  him.  Luke 
xxii.  63,  64,  65. 

Will  it  be  said,  as  Mr.  Salvador  does, 
that  all  this  took  place  out  of  the  presence 
of  the  senate  ?  Let  us  wait,  in  this  in- 
stance, till  the  senate  shall  be  called  up, 
and  we  shall  see  how  far  they  protected 
the  accused  person. 


Sb  TRIAL   OF   JESUS, 

SECTION    V . 

CAPTIOUS     INTERROGATORIES.  — ACTS     OF 

VIOLENCE  TOWARDS  JESUS. 

Already  had  the  cock  crowed  !  But 
it  was  not  yet  day.  The  elders  of  the 
people  and  the  chief  priests  and  the  scribes 
came  together,  and.  having  caused  Jesus  to 
appear  before  their  council,  they  proceeded 
to  interrogate  him.     Luke  xxii.  66, 

Now.  in  the  outset,  it  should  be  observed, 
that  if  they  had  been  less  carried  away  by 
their  hatred,  they  should,  as  it  was  the 
night  time,  not  only  have  postponed,  but 
put  a  stop  to  the  proceedings,  because  it 
was  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  the  most 
solemn  of  all  festivals  ;  and  according  to 
their  law  no  judicial  procedure  could  take 
place  on  a  feast-day,  under   the  penalty  of 


INTERROGATORIES  ;    ACTS  OF  VIOLENCE.     39 

being  null.*  ^Nevertheless,  let  us  see  who 
proceeded  to  interrogate  Jesus. 

This  was  that  same  Caiaphas.  who.  if  he 
had  intended  to  remain  a  jnd°~e.  was  evi- 
dently liable  to  objection  ;  for  in  the  pre- 
ceding assemblage  he  had  made  himself 
the  accuse?^  of  Jesus,  f  Even  before  he 
had  seen  or  heard  him,  he  declared  him  to 
be  deserving  of  death.  He  said  to  his 
colleagues,  that  ''it  was  expedient  that  one 
man  should  die  for  all."  John  xviii.  14. 
Such  being  the  opinion  of  Caiaphas.  we 
shall  not  be  surprised,  if  he  shows  partial- 
ity. 

Instead  of  interrogating  Jesus  respecting 
positive  acts  done,  with  their  circumstances, 
and  respecting  facts  personal  to  hi/ustlf, 

-  e,  as  to  these  two  grounds  of  nullity,  the  Jewish 
authors  cited  by  Frost  de  Rover,  tome  '-2.  p.  905,  rerbo 
Accusation. 

i  Mr.  Salvador  admits  this  :  "  Caiaphas.'*  says  he, 
u  made  himself  his  accuser."     p.  BE 


40  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

Caiaphas  interrogates  him  respecting  gen- 
eral facts,  respecting  his  disciples  (whom 
it  would  have  been  much  more  simple  to 
have  called  as  witnesses)  and  respecting 
his  doctrine,  which  was  a  mere  abstraction 
so  long  as  no  external  acts  were  the  con- 
sequence of  it.  "  The  high  priest  then 
asked  Jesus  of  his  disciples  and  of  his  doc- 
trine."    John  xviii.  19. 

Jesus  answered  with  dignity  :  "I  spake 
openly  to  the  world  ;  I  ever  taught  in  the 
synagogue  and  in  the  temple,  whither  the 
Jews  always  resort ;  and  in  secret  have  I 
said  nothing."     lb.  20. 

"  Why  askest  thou  me  ?  Ask  them 
which  heard  me,  ivhat  I  have  said  unto 
them  ;  behold,  they  know  what  I  said."  lb. 
21. 

"  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  one  of 
the  officers  which  stood  by  struck  Jesus 
with  the  palm  of  his  hand,  saying,  Answer- 
est  thou  the  high  priest  so  ?  "     lb. 


INTERROGATORIES  ]    ACTS   OF  VIOLENCE.      41 

Will  it  here  be  still  said,  that  this  violence 
was  the  individual  act  of  the  person  who 
thus  struck  the  accused  ?  I  answer,  that 
on  this  occasion  the  fact  took  place  in  the 
presence  and  under  the  eyes  of  the  whole 
council ;  and,  as  the  high  priest  who  pre- 
sided did  not  restrain  the  author  of  it,  I 
come  to  the  conclusion,  that  he  became  an 
accomplice,  especially  when  this  violence 
was  committed  under  the  pretence  of 
avenging  the  alleged  affront  to  his  dig- 
nity. 

But  in  what  respect  could  the  answer  of 
Jesus  appear  offensive  ?  "  If  I  have  spo- 
ken evil,"  said  Jesus,  "  bear  witness  of  the 
evil ;  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?  "  * 
John  xviii.  23. 

*  Ananias,  a  chief  priest,  having  given  orders  to  strike 

Paul  upon  the  face,  Paul  said  to  him :  God  shall  smite 

thee,  thou  whited  wall ;  for  sittest  thou  to  judge  me  after 

the  law,  and  commandest  me   to  be  smitten,  contrary 

to  the  law?  "     Acts  xxiii.  3. 


42  TRIAL   OF  JESUS. 

There  remained  no  mode  of  escaping 
from  this  dilemma.  They  accused  Jesus  ;  it 
was  for  those,  who  accused,  to  prove  their 
accusation.  An  accused  person  is  not 
obliged  to  criminate  himself.  He  should 
have  been  convicted  by  proofs ;  he  him- 
self called  for  them.  Let  us  see  what 
witnesses  were  produced  against  him. 


SECTION    VI. 

WITNESSES.  NEW    INTERROGATORIES. 

THE  JUDGE  IN  A  PASSION. 

"  And  the  chief  priests  and  all  the  coun- 
cil sought  for  witness  against  Jesus  to  put 
him  to  death  ;  and  found  none."  Mark  xiv. 
55. 

"  For  many  bare  false  witness  against 
him,  but  their  witness  agreed  not  togeth- 


FALSE   WITNESSES JUDGE'S   PASSION.     43 

"  And  there  arose  certain,  and  bare  false 
witness  against  him,  saying,  We  heard  him 
say,  I  will  destroy  this  temple  that  is  made 
with  hands,  and  within  three  days  T  will 
build  another  made  without  hands."  lb. 
57,  58. 

"  But  (to  the  same  point  still)  neither  so 
did  their  witness  agree  together."     lb.  59. 

Mr.  Salvador,  on  this  subject,  says,  p. 
87 :  "  The  two  witnesses,  whom  St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  Mark  charge  with  falsehood, 
narrate  a  discourse  which  St.  John  de- 
clares to  be  true,  so  far  as  respects  the 
power  which  Jesus  Christ  attributed  to 
himself." 

This  alleged  contradiction  among  the 
Evangelists  does  not  exist.  In  the  first 
place,  St.  Matthew  does  not  say  that  the 
discourse  was  had  by  Jesus.  In  chapter 
xxvi.  61,  he  states  the  depositions  of  the 
witnesses,  but  saying  at  the  same  time  that 
they  were  false  witnesses  ;  and  in  chapter 


44 


TRIAL   OF  JESUS. 


xxvii.  40,  he  puts  the  same  declaration  into 
the  mouth  of  those  who  insulted  Jesus  at 
the  foot  of  the  cross  ;  but  he  does  not  put 
it  into  the  mouth  of  Christ.  He  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  St.  Mark. 

St,  John,  chapter  ii.  19,  makes  Jesus 
speak  in  these  words :  "  Jesus  answered 
and  said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  And 
St.  John  adds  :  "  He  spake  of  the  temple  of 
his  body." 

Thus  Jesus  did  not  say  in  an  affirmative 
and  somewhat  menacing  manner,  I  will 
destroy  this  temple,  as  the  witnesses  falsely 
assumed ;  he  only  said,  hypothetically, 
Destroy  this  temple,  that  is  to  say,  sup- 
pose this  temple  should  be  destroyed,  I 
will  raise  it  up  in  three  days.  Besides, 
they  could  not  dissemble,  that  he  referred 
to  a  temple  altogether  different  from  theirs, 
because  he  said,  I  will  raise  up  another  in 
three  days,  which  will  not  be  made  by  the 
hands  of  man. 


FALSE  WITNESSES JUDGE'S  PASSION.    45 

It  hence  results,  at  least,  that  the  Jews 
did  not  understand  him,  for  they  cried  out, 
"  Forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  in 
building,  and  wilt  thou  rear  it  up  in  three 
days  ?  " 

Thus,  then,  the  witnesses  did  not  agree 
together,  and  their  declarations  had  nothing 
conclusive.  Mark  xiv.  59.  We  must,  there- 
fore, look  for  other  proofs. 

"  Then  the  high  priest,  (we  must  not 
forget,  that  he  is  still  the  accuser,)  the 
high  priest  stood  up  in  the  midst,  and  ask- 
ed Jesus,  saying,  Answerest  thou  nothing  r 
what  is  it,  which  these  witness  against 
thee  ?  But  he  held  his  peace,  and  an- 
swered nothing."  Mark  xiv.  60.  In  truth, 
since  the  question  was  not  concerning  the 
temple  of  the  Jews,  but  an  ideal  temple, 
not  made  by  the  hand  of  man,  and  which 
was  alone  in  the  thoughts  of  Jesus,  the  ex- 
planation was  to  be  found  in  the  very  evi- 
dence itself. 


46  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

The  high  priest  continued  :  "  I  adjure 
thee,  by  the  living  God,  that  thou  tell  us, 
whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God."  Matt.  xxvi.  63.  I  adjure  thee,  I 
call  upon  thee  on  oath  !  a  gross  infraction 
of  that  rule  of  morals  and  jurisprudence, 
which  forbids  our  placing  an  accused  per- 
son between  the  danger  of  perjury  and  the 
fear  of  inculpating  himself,  and  thus  mak- 
ing his  situation  more  hazardous.  The 
high  priest,  however,  persists,  and  says  to 
him  :  Art  thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God  ?  *  Jesus  answered,  Thou  hast  said. 
Matthew  xxvi.  64  ;  /  am.     Mark  xiv.  62. 

"  Then  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes, 

*  Mr.  Salvador,  in  his  note  to  p.  S2,  admits,  that  "  the 
expression  Son  of  God  was  in  common  use  among  the 
Hebrews,  to  signify  a  man  of  great  wisdom,  or  of  deep 
piety.  But  he  adds,  "  It  was  not  in  this  sense,  that  it 
was  used  by  Jesus  Christ ;  it  would  not  have  caused  so 
strong  a  sensation."  Thus,  then,  by  construction,  and 
changing  the  words  from  their  usual  meaning,  an  article 
of  accusation  is  formed  against  Jesus. 


FALSE  WITNESSES JUDGE'S  PASSION.    47 

saying,  He  hath  spoketi  blasphemy  ;  what 
further  need  have  we  of  witnesses  ?  behold, 
now  ye  have  heard  his  blasphemy.  What 
think  ye  ?  They  answered  and  said,  He 
is  guilty  of  death."     Matt.  xxvi.  66. 

Let  us  now  compare  this  scene  of  vio- 
lence with  the  mild  deduction  of  princi- 
ples, which  we  find  in  the  chapter  of  Mr. 
Salvador  On  the  Administration  of  Jus- 
tice ;  and  let  us  ask  ourselves,  if,  as  he 
alleges,  we  find  a  just  application  of  them 
in  the  proceedings  against  Christ  ? 

Do  we  discover  here  that  respect  of  the 
Hebrew  judge  towards  the  party  accused, 
when  we  see  that  Caiaphas  permitted  him 
to  be  struck,  in  his  presence,  with  impu- 
nity ? 

What  was  this  Caiaphas,  at  once  an  ac- 
cuser and  judge  ?  *     A  passionate  man,  and 

*  That  is,  he  usurped  the  functions  of  a  judge  ;  for  we 
shall  see,  in  the  next  section,  that  the  Council  of  the 
Jews  had  not  jurisdiction  of  capital  cases. 


48  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

too  much  resembling  the  odious  portrait 
which  the  historian  Josephus  has  given  us 
of  him  !  *  A  judge,  who  was  irritated  to 
such  a  degree,  that  he  rent  his  clothes ; 
who  imposed  upon  the  accused  a  most  sol- 
emn oath,  and  who  gave  to  his  answers 
the  criminal  character,  that  he  had  spoken 
blasphemy  !  And,  from  that  moment,  he 
wanted  no  more  witnesses,  notwithstand- 
ing the  law  required  them.  He  would  not 
have  an  inquiry,  which  he  perceived  would 
be  insufficient ;  he  attempts  to  supply  it  by 
captious  questions.  He  is  desirous  of  hav- 
ing him  condemned  upon  his  own  declara- 
tion alone,  (interpreted,  too,  as  he. chooses 
to  understand  it,)  though  that  was  forbid- 
den by  the  laws  of  the  Hebrews !  And, 
in  the  midst  of  a  most  violent  transport  of 
passion,  this  accuser  himself,  a  high  priest, 
who  means  to  speak  in  the  name  of  the 
living  God,  is  the  first  to  pass  sentence  of 

*  Antiq.  Judaic,  lib.  18,  cap.  3  &  6. 


SUBSEQUENT  ACTS  OF   VIOLENCE.  49 

death,  and  carries  with  him  the  opinions  of 
the  rest ! 

In  this  hideous  picture  I  cannot  recog- 
nise that  justice  of  the  Hebrews,  of  which 
Mr.  Salvador  has  given  so  fine  a  view  in 
his  theory! 


SECTION   VII. 

SUBSEQUENT  ACTS  OF  VIOLENCE. 

Immediately  after  this  kind  of  sacerdotal 
verdict  rendered  against  Jesus,  the  acts  of 
violence  and  insults  recommenced  with 
increased  strength  ;  the  fury  of  the  judge 
must  have  communicated  itself  to  the  by- 
standers. St.  Matthew  says  :  "  Then  did 
they  spit  in  his  face,  and  buffeted  him  ; 
and  others  smote  him  with  the  palms  of 
their  hands,  saying,  Prophesy  unto  us, 
4 


50  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

thou  Christ ;  who  is  he  that  smote  thee  ?  " 
Matt.  xxvi.  67,  68. 

Mr.  Salvador  does  not  contest  the  truth 
of  this  ill  treatment.     In  page  88  he  says. 
"  it  was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Hebrew 
law,  and  that  it  was  not  according  to  the 
order  of  nature,  that  a  senate  composed  of 
the  most  respectable  men  of  a  nation,  — 
that  a  senate,  which  might  perhaps  be  mis- 
taken  but   which  thought  it  was   acting 
mildly,  should  have  permitted  such  out- 
rages against  him  whose  life  it  held  in  its 
own  hands.     The  writers,  who  have  trans- 
mitted these  details  to  us,  not  having  been 
present  themselves  at  the  trial,  were  dis- 
posed  to   over  charge  the  picture,  either 
on  account  of   their  own  feelings,  or  to 
throw  upon  their  judges  a  greater  odium." 
I  repeat ;  this  ill  treatment  was  entirely 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of   the  law.     And 
what  do  I  want  more,  since   my  object  is, 
to   make  prominent  all  the  violations   of 
law. 


SUBSEQUENT  ACTS   OF  VIOLENCE.  51 

"  It  is  not  in  nature  to  see  a  body, 
which  respects  itself,  authorize  such  at- 
tempts." But  of  what  consequence  is  that, 
when  the  fact  is  established  ?  "  The  his- 
torians, it  is  said,  were  not  present  at  the 
trial."  But  was  Mr.  Salvador  there  pres- 
ent himself,  so  that  he  could  give  a  flat 
denial  of  their  statements  ?  And  when 
even  an  able  writer,  who  was  not  an  eye 
witness,  relates  the  same  events  after  the 
lapse  of  more  than  eighteen  centuries,  he 
ought  at  least  to  bring  opposing  evidence,  if 
he  would  impeach  that  of  contemporaries  ; 
who,  if  they  were  not  in  the  very  hall  of 
the  council,  were  certainly  on  the  spot,  in 
the  vicinity,  perhaps  in  the  court  yard, 
inquiring  anxiously  of  every  thing  that 
was  happening  to  the  man  whose  disciples 
they  were.*     Besides,  the  learned  author 

*  Peter  followed  him  afar  off  unto  the  high  priest's 
palace,  and  went  in  and  sat  with  the  servants  to  see 
the  end.     Matt.  xxvi.  53.     So   also  the  young  man 


52  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

whom  I  am  combating  says,  in  the  outset 
(p.  81)  "  it  is  from  the  Gospels  themselves 
that  he  will  take  all  his  facts."  He 
must  then  take  the  whole  together,  as  well 
those  which  go  to  condemn,  as  those  which 
are  in  palliation  or  excuse. 

Those  gross  insults,  those  inhuman  acts 
of  violence,  even  if  they  are  to  be  cast 
upon  the  servants  of  the  high  priest  and 
the  persons  in  his  train,  do  not  excuse 
those  individuals,  who,  when  they  took 
upon  themselves  the  authority  of  judges, 
were  bound  at  the  same  time  to  throw 
around  him  all  the  protection  of  the  law. 
Caiaphas,  too,  was  culpable  as  the  master  of 
the  house,  (for  every  thing  took  place  in 
his  house,)  even  if  he  should  not  be  re- 
sponsible as  high  priest  and  president  of 

the  council  for  having  permitted  excesses, 

I 

spoken  of  by  St.  Mark,  xiv.  51  :  And  there  followed 
him  a  certain  young  man,  &c. 


SUBSEQUENT    ACTS  OF  VIOLENCE.  53 

which,  indeed  were  but  too  much  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  rage  he  had  himself 
displayed  upon  the  bench. 

These  outrages,  which  would  be  inex- 
cusable even  towards  a  man  irrevocably 
condemned  to  punishment,  were  the  more 
criminal  towards  Jesus,  because,  legally 
and  judicially  speaking,  there  had  not  yet 
been  any  sentence  properly  passed  against 
him  according  to  the  public  law  of  the 
country  ;  as  we  shall  see  in  the  following 
section,  which  will  deserve  the  undivided 
attention  of  the  reader. 


54 


TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 


SECTION     VIII. 


I      THE  POSITION    OF    THE    JEWS    IN    RESPECT  TO 
THE   ROMANS. 


We  must  not  forget,  that  Judea  was  a 
conquered  country.  After  the  death  of 
Herod  —  most  inappropriately  surnamed  the 
Great  —  Augustus  had  confirmed  his  last 
will,  by  which  that  king  of  the  Jews  had 
arranged  the  division  of  his  dominions 
between  his  two  sons  :  but  Augustus  did 
not  continue  their  title  of  king,  which 
their  father  had  borne. 

Archelaus,  on  whom  Judea  devolved, 
having  been  recalled  on  account  of  his 
cruelties,  the  territory,  which  was  at  first 
entrusted  to  his  command,  was  united  to 
the  province  of  Syria.  (Josephus,  Antiq. 
Jud.  lib.  17,  cap.  15.) 


li 


POLITICAL    POSITION    OF    THE    JEWS.       55 

Augustus  then  appointed  particular  offi- 
cers for  Judea.  Tiberius  did  the  same  ; 
and  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
Pilate  was  one  of  those  officers.  (Josephus, 
lib.  18,  cap.  3&  8.) 

Some  have  considered  Pilate  as  gover 
nor,  by  title,  and  have  given  him  the  Latin 
appellation,  Presses,  president  or  governor. 
But  they  have  mistaken  the  force  of  the 
word.  Pilate  was  one  of  those  public  offi- 
cers, who  were  called  by  the  Romans 
procuratores  Ceesaris,  Imperial  procurators. 

With  this  title  of  procurator,  he  was 
placed  under  the  superior  authority  of  the 
governor  of  Syria,  the  true  presses,  or  gov- 
ernor of  that  province,  of  which  Judea  was 
then  only  one  of  the  dependencies. 

To  the  governor  (presses)  peculiarly  be- 
longed the  right  of  taking  cognizance  of 
capital  cases.*     The   procurator,   on   the 

*  De  Crimine  prsesidis  cognitio  est.  Cujas,  xix* 
Observ.  13. 


56  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

contrary,  had,  for  his  principal  duty,  no- 
thing but  the  collection  of  the  revenue, 
and  the  trial  of  revenue  causes.  But  the 
right  of  taking  cognizance  of  capital  cases 

,  did,  in  some  instances,  belong  to  certain 
procurators,  who  were  sent  into  small  prov- 

i  inces  to  fill  the  places  of  governors  (vice- 
prcesides),  as  appears  clearly  from  the 
Roman  laws.*     Such  was  Pilate  at  Jeru-  ,/ 

i   salem.f 

The  Jews,  placed  in  this  political  posi- 

*  Procurator  Caesaris  fungens  vice  prcesidis  potest 
cognoscere  de  causis  criminalibus .  Godefroy,  in  his 
note  (letter  S)  upon  the  3d  law  of  the  Code,  Ubi 
causa  Jiscales,  &c.  And  he  cites  several  others,  which 
I  have  verified,  and  which  are  most  precise  to  the 
same  effect.  See  particularly  the  4th  law  of  the  Code, 
'  Ad,  leg.  fab.  de  plag.,  and  the  2d  law  of  the  Code,  De 
pcenis. 

t  Procuratoribus  Caesaris  data  est  jurisdictio  in  causis 

fiscalibus  pecuniariis,  non  in  criminalibus,  nisi  quum 

fungebantur   vice  prasidum;   ut   Pontius   Pilatus  fuit 

I    procurator   Caesaris    vice   prasidis  in    Syria.     Cujas, 

;     Observ.  xix.  13. 


POLITICAL    POSITION    OF    THE    JEWS.      57 

tion — notwithstanding  they  were  left  in  the 
enjoyment  of  their  civil  laws,  the  public 
exercise  of  their  religion,  and  many  things 
merely  relating  to  their  police  and  munici- 
pal regulations  —  the  Jews,  I  say,  had  not 
the  power  of  life  and  death ;  this  was  a 
principal  attribute  of  sovereignty,  which 
the  Romans  always  took  great  care  to  re- 
serve to  themselves,  even  if  they  neglected 
other  things.  Apud  Romanos,  jus  valet 
gladii  ;  ccetera  transmittuntur.     Tacit. 

What  then  was  the  right  of  the  Jewish 
authorities  in  regard  to  Jesus?  Without 
doubt  the  scribes,  and  their  friends  the 
Pharisees,  might  well  have  been  alarmed, 
as  a  body  and  individually,  at  the  preach- 
ing and  success  of  Jesus  ;  they  might  be 
concerned  for  their  worship ;  and  they 
might  have  interrogated  the  man  respect- 
ing his  creed  and  his  doctrines,  —  they 
might  have  made  a  kind  of  preparatory 
proceeding,  —  they  might   have    declared, 


58  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

in  point  of  fact,  that  those  doctrines,  which 
threatened  their  own,  were  contrary  to 
their  law,  as  understood,  by  themselves. 

But  that  law,  although  it  had  not  under- 
gone any  alteration  as  to  the  affairs  of  re- 
ligion, had  no  longer  any  coercive  power 
as  to  the  external  or  civil  regulations  of 
society.     In  vain  would  they  have  under-   i  j 
taken  to  pronounce  sentence  of  death  under  I  / 
the  circumstances  of  the   case   of   Jesus ;  1/ 
the  council  of  the  Jews  had  not  the  power 
to  pass  a  sentence  of  death  ;  it  only  would   ! 
have    had   power  to  make  an   accusation 
against   him   before   the    governor,   or  his 
deputy,  and  then  deliver  him  over  to  be    j 
tried  by  him. 

Let  us  distinctly  establish  this  point ;  for 
here  I  entirely  differ  in  opinion  from  Mr. 
Salvador.  According  to  him,  (p.  88,)  "  the 
Jews  had  reserved  the  power  of  trying ; 
according  to  their  law ;  but  it  was  in  the 
hands  of   the  procurator    alone,   that  the 


POLITICAL    POSITION    OF    THE    JEWS.       59 

executive  power  was  vested  ;  every  culprit 
must  be  put  to  death  by  his  consent,  in 
order  that  the  senate  should  not  have  the 
means  of  reaching  persons  that  were  sold 
to  foreigners." 

No  ;  the  Jews  had  not  reserved  the  right 
of  passing  sentence  of  death.  This  right 
had  been  transferred  to  the  Romans  by  the 
very  act  of  conquest ;  and  this  was  not 
merely  that  the  senate  should  not  have  the 
means  of  reaching  persons  who  were  sold 
to  foreign  countries  ;  but  it  was  done,  in 
order  that  the  conqueror  might  be  able  to 
reach  those  individuals  who  should  be- 
come impatient  of  the  yoke;  it  was,  in 
short,  for  the  equal  protection  of  all,  as  all 
had  become  Roman  subjects  ;  and  to  Rome 
alone  belonged  the  highest  judicial  power, 
.which  is  the  principal  attribute  of  sove- 
reignty. Pilate,  as  the  representative  of 
Caesar  in  Judea,  was  not  merely  an  agent 
of  the   executive   authority,    which   would 


60  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

have  left  the  judiciary  and  legislative  pow- 
er in  the  hands  of  the  conquered  people  — 
he  was  not  simply  an  officer  appointed  to 
give  an  exequatur  or  mere  approval  (visa) 
to  sentences  passed  by  another  authority, 
the  authority  of  the  Jews.  When  the 
matter  in  question  was  a  capital  case,  the 
Roman  authorities  not  only  ordered  the 
execution  of  a  sentence,  but  also  took 
cognizance  (cognitio)  of  the  crime  ;  it  had 
the  right  of  jurisdiction  a  priori,  and  that 
of  passing  judgment  in  the  last  resort. 
If  Pilate  himself  had  not  had  this  power 
by  special  delegation,  vice  praisidis,  it  was 
vested  in  the  governor,  within  whose  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction  the  case  occurred  ;  but 
in  any  event  we  hold  it  to  be  clear, 
that  the  Jews  had  lost  the  right  of  con- 
demning to  death  any  person  whatever, 
not  only  so  far  as  respects  the  execution  but 
the  passing  of  the  sentence.  This  is  one 
of  the  best  settled  points  in  the  provincial 
law  of  the  Romans. 


POLITICAL    POSITION    OF    THE    JEWS.       61 

The  Jews  were  not  ignorant  of  this  ; 
for  when  they  went  before  Pilate,  to  ask 
of  him  the  condemnation  of  Jesus,  they 
themselves  declared,  that  it  was  not  per- 
mitted to  them  to  put  any  person  to  death  : 
"It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to 
death."     John  xviii.  31. 

Here   I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  support 
myself  by  the  opinion  of  a  very  respect- 
able authority,  the  celebrated  Loiseau,  in 
his  treatise  on  Seigneuries,  in  the  chapter 
on  the  administration  of  justice  belonging 
to   cities.     "  In  truth,"    says  he,  there  is 
some  evidence,   that  the  police,  in  which 
the  people  had  the  sole  interest,  was  ad- 
ministered by  officers  of  the  people ;  but  I 
know  not  upon  what   were   founded   the 
concessions   of  power    to   some   cities   of 
France  to  exercise   criminal  jurisdiction ; 
nor  why  the  Ordinance  of  Moulins  left  that 
to  them  rather  "than  civil  cases;  for  the 
criminal    jurisdiction  is  the  right  of  the 


62  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

sword,  the  merum  i?nperium,  or  absolute 
sovereignty.  Accordingly,  by  the  Roman 
law,  the  administration  of  justice  was  so 
far  prohibited  to  the  officers  of  cities,  that 
they  could  not  punish  even  by  a  simple 
fine.  Thus  it  is  doubtless  that  toe  must 
understand  that  passage  of  the  Gospel, 
where  the  Jews  say  to  Pilate,  It  is  not 
laivful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death  ;  for, 
after  they  were  subjected  to  the  Romans, 
they  had  not  jurisdiction  of  crimes." 

Let  us  now  follow  Jesus  to  the  presence 
of  Pilate. 


SECTION     IX 


THE    ACCUSATION    MADE    BEFORE    PILATE. 


At  this  point   I  must  entreat  the  partic- 
ular attention  of  the  reader.     The  irregu- 


ACCUSATION    BEFORE    PILATE.  63 

larities  and  acts  of  violence,  which  I  have 
hitherto  remarked  upon,  are  nothing  in 
comparison  with  the  unbridled  fury,  which 
is  about  to  display  itself  before  the  Roman 
Judge,  in  order  to  extort  from  him,  against 
his  own  conviction,  a  sentence  of  death. 

"  And  straightway  in  the  morning  the 
chief  priests  held  a  consultation  with  the 
elders,  and  scribes,  and  the  whole  council, 
and  bound  Jesus,  and  carried  him  away, 
and  delivered  him  to  Pilate."     Mark  xv.  1. 

As  soon  as  the  morning  was  come ; 
for,  as  I  have  observed  already,  every  thing 
which  had  been  done  thus  far  against  Je- 
sus, was  done  during  the  night. 

They  then  led  Jesus  from  Caiaphas  unto 
the  Hall  of  Judgment  of  Pilate.*  It  was 
early  ;  and  they  themselves  went  not  into 
the  judgment  hall,  lest   they  should  be  de- 


*  "  To  carry  one  from  Caiaphas  to  Pilate  "  has  since 
become  a  proverb. 


64  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

filed ;  but  that  they  might  eat  the  passover, 
John  xviii.  28. 

Singular  scrupulousness  !  and  truly  wor- 
thy of  the  Pharisees  !  They  were  afraid 
of  defiling  themselves  on  the  day  of  the 
passover  by  entering  the  house  of  a  hea- 
then !  And  yet,  the  same  day,  only  some 
hours  before  presenting  themselves  to  Pi- 
late, they  had,  in  contempt  of  their  own 
law,  committed  the  outrage  of  holding  a 
council  and  deliberating  upon  an  accusa- 
tion of  a  capital  crime. 

As  they  would  not  enter,  "  Pilate  went 
out  to  them."  John  xviii.  29.  Now  observe 
his  language.  He  did  not  say  to  them. 
Where  is  the  sentence  you  have  passed ; 
as  he  must  have  done,  if  he  was  only  to 
give  them  his  simple  exequatur,  or  permis- 
sion to  execute  the  sentence  ;  but  he  takes 
up  the  matter  from  the  beginning,  as  would 
be  done  by  one  who  had  plenary  jurisdic- 
tion ;  and  he  says  to  them  :  What  accusa- 
tion bring  ye  against  this  man  ?     lb. 


ACCUSATION    BEFORE    PILATE. 


65 


They  answered,  with  their  accustomed 
haughtiness  :  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor 
we  would  not  have  delivered  him  up  to 
thee.  John  xviii.  30.  They  wished  to  have 
it  understood,  that,  being  a  question  of  blas- 
phemy, it  was  the  cause  of  their  religion^ 
which  they  could  appreciate  better  than 
any  others  could.  Pilate,  then,  would 
have  been  under  the  necessity  of  believing 
them  on  their  xoord.  But  this  Roman, 
indignant  at  their  proposed  course  of  pro- 
ceeding, which  would  have  restricted  his 
jurisdiction  by  making  him  the  passive 
instrument  of  the  wishes  of  the  Jews, 
answered  them  in  an  ironical  manner : 
Well,  since  you  say  he  has  sinned  against 
your  law,  take  him  yourselves  and  judge 
him  according  to  your  law.  John  xviii.  31. 
This  was  an  absolute  mystification  to  them, 
for  they  knew  their  own  want  of  power  to 
condemn  him  to  death.  But  they  were 
obliged  to  yield  the  point,  and  to  submit 
5 


66  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

to  Pilate  himself  their  articles  of  accusa- 
tion. 

Now  what  were  the  grounds  of  this  ac- 
cusation ?  Were  they  the  same  which  had 
hitherto  been  alleged  against  Jesus  —  the 
charge  of  blasphemy  —  which  was  the  only 
one  brought  forward  by  Caiaphas  before 
the  council  of  the  Jews?  Not  at  all; 
despairing  of  obtaining  from  the  Roman 
judge  a  sentence  of  death  for  a  religious 
quarrel,  which  was  of  no  interest  to  the 
Romans,*  they  suddenly  changed  their 
plan  ;  they  abandoned  their  first  accusation, 
the  charge  of  blasphemy,  and  substituted 
for  it  a  political  accusation,  an  offence 
against  the  state. 

Here  we  have  the  very  crisis,  or  essen- 
tial  incident,    of   the    passion  j    and   that 

*  Lysias  thus  wrote  to  Felix  the  Governor,  in  rela- 
tion to  Paul  :  Whom  I  perceived  to  be  accused  of 
questions  of  their  law,  but  to  have  nothing  laid  to  his 
charge  worthy  of  death  or  bonds.     Acts  xxiii.  20. 


ACCUSATION    BEFORE    PILATE.  67 

which  makes  the  heaviest  accusation  of 
guilt  on  the  part  of  the  informers  against 
Jesus.  For,  being  fully  bent  on  destroy- 
ing him  in  any  manner  whatever,  they  no 
longer  exhibited  themselves  as  the  aveng- 
ers of  their  religion,  which  was  alleged  to 
have  been  outraged,  or  of  their  worship, 
which  it  was  pretended  was  threatened ; 
but,  ceasing  to  appear  as  Jews,  in  order  to 
affect  sentiments  belonging  to  a  foreign 
nation,  those  hypocrites  held  out  the  appear- 
ance of  being  concerned  for  the  interests 
of  Rome  ;  they  accused  their  own  country- 
man of  an  intention  to  restore  the  kingdom 
of  Jerusalem,  to  make  himself  king  of  the 
Jews,  and  to  make  an  insurrection  of  the 
people  against  their  conquerors.  Let  us 
hear  them  speak  for  themselves  : 

"  And  they  began  to  accuse  him,  saying, 
We  found  this  fellow  perverting  the  nation, 
and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Cgesar, 
saying,  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a  king." 
Luke  xxiii.  2. 

I 


68  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

What  a  calumny  !  Jesus  forbidding  to 
give  tribute  to  Caesar  !  when  he  had  an- 
swered the  Pharisees  themselves,  in  pres- 
ence of  the  whole  people,  by  showing 
them  the  image  of  Caesar  upon  a  Roman 
piece  of  money,  and  saying,  Give  unto 
Caesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's.  But 
this  accusation  was  one  mode  of  interesting 
Pilate  in  respect  to  his  jurisdiction  ;  for,  as 
an  imperial  procurator,  he  was  specially  to 
superintend  the  collection  of  the  revenue. 
The  second  branch  of  the  accusation  still 
more  directly  affected  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Romans  :  "  He  holds  himself  up  for  a 
king." 

The  accusation  having  thus  assumed  a 
character  purely  political,  Pilate  thought 
he  must  pay  attention  to  it.  "  Then 
Pilate  entered  into  the  judgment  hall,  (the 
place  where  justice  was  administered,)  and 
having  summoned  Jesus  to  appear  before 
him,  he  proceeds  to  his  Examination,  and 


ACCUSATION     BEFORE    PILATE.  69 

says  to  him  :  "  Art  thou  the  king  of  the 
Jews  ?  "     John  xviii.  33. 

This  question,  so  different  from  those 
which  had  been  addressed  to  him  at  the 
house  of  the  high  priest,  appears  to  have 
excited  the  astonishment  of  Jesus  ;  and,  in 
his  turn,  he  asked  Pilate  :  "  Sayest  thou  this 
thing  of  thyself,  or  did  others  tell  it  thee 
of  me?"  lb.  24.  In  reality,  Jesus  was 
desirous  of  knowing,  first  of  all,  the 
authors  of  this  new  accusation  —  Is  this 
an  accusation  brought  against  me  by  the 
Romans  or  by  the  Jews  ?  • 

Pilate  replied  to  him  —  "  Am  I  a  Jew  ? 
Thine  own  nation  and  the  chief  priests 
have  delivered  thee  unto  me ;  what  hast 
thou  done  ?  »     lb.  35. 

All  the  particulars  of  this  procedure  are  3 
important ;  I  cannot   too  often  repeat  the  - 
remark,  that  in  no  part  of  the  transactions 
before  Pilate  is  there  any  question  at  all  ? 
respecting  a  previous  sentence,  a  judgment 


70  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

already  passed  —  a  judgment;  the  execution 
of  which  was  the  only  subject  of  consid- 
eration ;  it  was  a  case  of  a  capital  accu- 
sation j  but  an  accusation  which  was  then 
just  beginning  ;  they  were  about  the  pre- 
liminary interrogatories  put  to  the  accused, 
and  Pilate  says  to  him,  "  What  hast  thou 
done  ?  " 

Jesus,  seeing  by  the  explanation  what 
was  the  source  of  the  prejudging  of  his 
case,  and  knowing  the  secret  thoughts 
which  predominated  in  making  the  accu- 
sation, and  that  his  enemies  wanted  to 
arrive  at  the  same  end  by  an  artifice,  an- 
swered Pilate  —  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world ;  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this 
world,  then  would  my  servants  fight,  that  I 
should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews;  "  (we 
see,  in  fact,  that  Jesus  had  forbidden  his 
people  to  resist)  but,  he  added,  "now  is 
my  kingdom  not  from  hence."  John  xviii. 
36. 


ACCUSATION     BEFORE    PILATE.  71 

This  answer  of  Jesus  is  very  remarka- 
ble ;  it  became  the  foundation  of  his  re- 
ligion, and  the  pledge  of  its  universality, 
because  it  detached  it  from  the  interests  of 
all  governments.  It  rests  not  merely  in 
assertion,  in  doctrine  ;  it  was  given  in  jus- 
tification, in  defence  against  the  accusation 
of  intending  to  make  himself  King  of  the 
Jews.  Indeed,  if  Jesus  had  affected  a 
temporal  royal  authority,  if  there  had  been 
the  least  attempt,  on  his  part,  to  usurp  the 
power  of  Ccesar,  he  would  have  been 
guilty  of  treason  in  the  eyes  of  the  magis- 
trate. But,  by  answering  twice,  my  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  ivorld,  my  kingdom  is 
not  from  hence,  his  justification  was  com- 
plete. 

Pilate,  however,  persisted  and  said  to 
him  :  "  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  "  Jesus 
replied,  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  king.  To 
this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause 
came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear 


72  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

witness  unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that 
is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice.  John 
xviii.  37. 

Pilate  then  said  to  him  :    What  is  the 
'     truth  ? 

This  question  proves,  that  Pilate  had  not 
a  very  clear  idea  of  what  Jesus  called  the 
truth.  He  perceived  nothing  in  it  but 
ideology  ;  and,  satisfied  with  having  said 
(less  in  the  manner  of  a  question  than  of 
an  exclamation)  "  What  is  the  truth" 
he  went  out  to  the  Jews  (who  remained 
;  outside)  and  said  to  them,  "  /  find  in 
him  no  fault  at  all."     John  xviii.  38. 

Here,  then,  we  see  Jesus  absolved  from 
the  accusation  by  the  declaration  of  the 
Roman  judge  himself. 

But  the  accusers,  persisting  still  farther,  i . 
added  —  "  He  stirreth  up  the  people,  teach- \\ 
■   ing  throughout  all  Jewry,  beginning  from 
ij  Galilee  to  this  place."     Luke  xxiii.  5. 
I';       "  He  stirreth  up  the   people  "  !  This  is 


ACCUSATION     BEFORE    PILATE.  73 

a  charge  of  sedition  ;  and  for  Pilate.  But 
observe,  it  was  by  the  doctrine  which  he 
teaches ;  these  words  comprehend  the  real 
complaint  of  the  Jews.  To  them  it  was 
equivalent  to  saying  —  He  teaches  the  peo- 
ple, he  instructs  them,  he  enlightens  them  ; 
he  preaches  new  doctrines  which  are  not 
ours.  "  He  stirs  up  the  people  "  !  This,  in 
their  mouths  signified  —  the  people  hear 
him  willingly ;  the  people  follow  and 
become  attached  to  him  :  for  he  preaches  a 
doctrine  that  is  friendly  and  consolatory  to 
the  people  ;  he  unmasks  our  pride,  our 
avarice,  our  insatiable  spirit  of  domina- 
tion ! 

Pilate,  however,  does  not  appear  to  have 
attached  much  importance  to  this  new  turn 
given  to  the  accusation  ;  but  he  here  be- 
trays a  weakness.  He  heard  the  word 
Galilee ;  and  he  makes  that  the  occasion 
of  shifting  off  the  responsibility  upon 
another  public  officer,  and  seizes  the  occa- 


74  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

sion  with  avidity.  He  says  to  Jesus  —  you 
are  a  Galilean  then  ?  and,  upon  the  an- 
swer being  in  the  affirmative,  considering 
Jesus  as  belonging  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Herod-Antipas,  who,  by  the  good  pleasure 
of  Cassar,  was  then  tetrarch  of  Galilee, 
he  sent  him  to  Herod.     Luke  xxiii.  6,  7. 

But  Herod,  who,  as  St.  Luke  says,  had 
been  long  desirous  of  seeing  Jesus  and 
had  hoped  to  see  some  miracle  done  by 
him,  after  satisfying  an  idle  curiosity  and 
putting  several  questions  to  him,  which  Je- 
sus did  not  deign  to  answer,  —  Herod,  not- 
withstanding the  presence  of  the  priests, 
(who  had  not  yet  gone  off,  but  stood  there 
with  their  scribes,)  and  notwithstanding 
the  pertinacity  with  which  they  continued 
to  accuse  Jesus,  perceiving  nothing  but 
what  was  merely  chimerical  in  the  accu- 
sation of  being  a  king,  made  a  mockery  of 
the  affair,  and  sent  Jesus  back  to  Pilate,, 
after  having  arrayed  him  in  a  gorgeous , 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  75 

robe,  in  order  to  show  that  he  thought  this 
pretended  royalty  was  a  subject  of  ridicule 
rather  than  of  apprehensions.  Luke  xxiii. 
8,  &c,  and  De  Sacy.     lb. 


SECTION     X. 

THE    LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE. 

No  person,  then  was  willing  to  condemn 
Jesus ;  neither  Herod,  who  only  made  the 
case  a  subject  of  mockery,  nor  Pilate,  who 
had  openly  declared  that  he  found  nothing 
criminal  in  him. 

But  the  hatred  of  the  priests  was  not 
disarmed  ;  so  far  from  it,  that  the  chief 
priests,  with  a  numerous  train  of  their 
partisans,  returned  to  Pilate  with  a  deter- 
mination to  force  him  to  a  decision. 

The  unfortunate    Pilate,   reviewing  his 


76  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

proceedings  in  their  presence,  said  to  them 
again :  "  Ye  have  brought  this  man  unto 
me  as  one  that  perverteth  the  people  ;  and, 
behold,  I,  having  examined  him  before  you, 
have  found  no  fault  in  this  man  touching 
those  things  whereof  ye  accuse  him :  No, 
nor  yet  Herod ;  for  I  sent  you  to  him,  and 
lo,  nothing  worthy  of  death  is  done  unto 
him.  I  will  therefore  chastise  him  and 
release  him."     Luke  xxiii.  14,  15. 

After  "  chastising  "  him  !  And  was  not 
this  a  piece  of  cruelty,  when  he  consid- 
ered him  to  be  innocent  ?  *  But  this  was 
an  act  of  condescension  by  which  Pilate 
hoped  to  quiet  the  rage  with  which  he  saw 
they  were  agitated. 

*  Gerhard  makes  the  following  unanswerable  dilem- 
ma upon  this  point.  "  Be  consistent  with  thyself,  Pi- 
late ;  for,  if  Christ  is  innocent,  why  dost  thou  not 
send  him  away  acquitted  ?  And  if  thou  belicvest  him 
deserving  of  chastisement  with  rods,  why  dost  thou 
proclaim  him  to  be  innocent?  "  Gerh.  Harm.  ch.  193, 
p.  1889. 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  77 

"  Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesus  and 
scourged  him."  John  xix.  1.  And,  sup- 
posing that  he  had  done  enough  to  disarm 
their  fury,  he  exhibited  him  to  them  in 
that  pitiable  condition  ;  saying  to  them  at 
the  same  time,  Behold  the  man !  Ecce 
homo.     John  xix.  5. 

Now,  in  my  turn,  I  say,  here  is  indeed 
a  decree  of  Pilate  ;  and  an  unjust  decree  ; 
but  it  is  not  the  pretended  decree  alleged 
to  have  been  made  by  the  Jews.  It  is  a 
decision  wholly  different  ;  an  unjust  de- 
cision, it  is  true  ;  but  sufficient  to  avail  as 
a  legal  bar  to  any  new  proceedings  against 
Jesus  for  the  same  act.  Non  bis  in  idem, 
no  man  shall  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy,  &c. 
is  a  maxim,  which  has  come  down  to  us 
from  the  Romans. 

Accordingly,  "  from  thenceforth  Pilate 
sought  to  release  Jesus."     John  xix.  12. 

Here,  now,  observe  the  deep  perfidy  of 
his  accusers.     "  If  thou  let  this  man  go, 


78  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend  ;  whosoever 
maketh  himself  a  king  speaketh  against 
Cassar."     lb. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Pilate  was  malig- 
nant ;  we  see  all  the  efforts  he  had  made  at 
different  times  to  save  Jesus.  But  he  was 
a  public  officer,  and  was  attached  to  his 
office ;  he  was  intimidated  by  the  outcry 
which  called  in  question  his  fidelity  to  the 
emperor ;  he  was  afraid  of  a  dismissal ; 
and  he  yielded.  He  immediately  reascend- 
ed  the  judgment  seat ;  (Matt,  xxvii.  19, ) 
and,  as  new  light  had  thus  come  upon 
him,  he  proceeded  to  make  a  second  de- 
cree ! 

But  being  for  a  moment  stopped  by  the 
voice  of  his  own  conscience,  and  by  the 
advice  which  his  terrified  wife  sent  to  him 
— "  Have  thou  nothing  to  do  with  that 
just  man  "  —  (Matt,  xxvii.  19)  — he  made 
his  last  effort,  by  attempting  to  influence 
the  populace  to  accept  of  Barabbas  instead 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  79 

of  Jesus.  "  Bat  the  chief  priests  moved 
the  people,  that  he  should  rather  release 
Barabbas  unto  them."  Mark  xv.  11.  Ba- 
rabbas  !  a  murderer  !  an  assassin  ! 

Pilate  spoke  to  them  again  :  What  will 
ye  then,  that  I  should  do  with  Jesus  ?  And 
they  cried  out.  Away  with  him,  crucify 
him.  Pilate  still  persisted  :  Shall  I  cruci- 
fy your  king  ?  thus  using  terms  of  raille- 
ry, in  order  to  disarm  them.  But  here 
showing  themselves  to  be  more  truly  Ro- 
man than  Pilate  himself,  the  chief  priests 
hypocritically  answered  :  We  have  no  king 
but  Ccesar.     John  xix.  15. 

The  outcry  was  renewed  —  Crucify  him, 
crucify  him !  And  the  clamor  became 
more  and  more  threatening  ;  "  and  the 
voices  of  them  and  of  the  chief  priests 
prevailed."     Luke  xxiii.  23. 

At  length  Pilate,  being  desirous  of  pleas- 
j  ing  the  multitude,  proceeds  to  speak.  But 
can  we  call  it  a  legal  adjudication,  a  judg- 


:: 


SO  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

ment,  that  he  is  about  to  pronounce  ?  Is 
he,  at  the  moment,  in  that  free  state  of 
mind  which  is  necessary  for  a  judge,  who 
is  about  to  pass  a  sentence  of  death  1  What 
new  witnesses,  what  proofs  have  been 
brought  forward  to  change  his  conviction 
and  opinion,  which  had  been  so  energeti- 
cally declared,  of  the  innocence  of  Jesus  ? 

"  When  Pilate  saw  that  he  could  prevail 
nothing,  but  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made, 
he  took  water  and  washed  his  hands  before 
the  multitude,  saying,  i"  am  innocent  of 
the  blood  of  this  just  person  ;  see  ye  to  it. 
Matt,  xxvii.  24.  And  Pilate  gave  sentence, 
that  it  should  be  as  they  required.  Luke 
xxiii.  24.  And  he  delivered  him  to  them 
to  be  crucified."     Matt,  xxvii.  26. 

Well  mayest  thou  wash  thy  hands,  Pi- 
late, stained  as  they  are  with  innocent 
blood  !  Thou  hast  authorized  the  act  in 
thy  weakness ;  thou  art  not  less  culpable, 
than  if  thou  hadst  sacrificed  him  through 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  81 

wickedness  !  All  generations,  down  to  our 
own  time,  have  repeated,  that  the  Just 
One  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate.  Thy 
name  has  remained  in  history,  to  serve  for 
the  instruction  of  all  public  men,  all  pusil- 
lanimous judges,  in  order  to  hold  up  to 
them  the  shame  of  yielding  contrary  to 
one's  own  convictions.  The  populace,  in 
its  fury,  made  an  outcry  at  the  foot  of  thy 
judgment  seat,  where,  perhaps,  thou  thy- 
self didst  not  sit  securely  !  But  of  what 
importance  was  that  ?  Thy  duty  spoke 
out ;  and  in  such  a  case,  better  would  it 
be  to  suffer  death,  than  to  inflict  it  on 
another.* 

*  We  will  cite  here  the  words  of  one  of  the  finest 
laws  of  the  Romans  :  Vanae  voces  populi  non  sunt 
audienda?,  quando  aut  noxium  crimine  absolvi,  aut  in- 
noccntem  condemnari  desiderant  —  The  idle  clamor  of 
the  populace  is  not  to  be  regarded,  when  they  call  for 
a  guilty  man  to  be  acquitted,  or  an  innocent  one  to  be 

6 


82  TRIAL  OF  JESUS. 

We  will  now  come  to  a  conclusion. 

The  proof  that  Jesus  was  not,  as  Mr. 
►Salvador  maintains,  put  to  death  for  the 
crime  of  blasphemy  or  sacrilege,  and  for 
having  preached  a  new  religious  worship  in 
contravention  of  the  Mosaic  law.  results 
from  the  very  sentence  pronounced  by  Pi- 
late ;  a  sentence,  in  pursuance  of  which  he 
was  led  to  execution  by  Roman  soldiers. 

There  was  among  the  Romans  a  custom, 
which  we  borrowed  from  their  jurispru- 
dence, and  which  is  still  followed,  of  plac- 
ing over  the  head  of  a  condemned  criminal 
a  writing  containing  an  extract  from  his 
sentence,  in  order  that  the  public  might 
know  for  what  crime  he  was  condemned. 

condemned.     Laio  12.   Code  de  Pcenis.     Pilate  might 
also  have  read  in  Horace  :  Justum  et  tenacem,  &c.  — 

"  The  man  in  conscious  virtue  bold, 
Who  dares  his  secret  purpose  hold, 
Unshaken  hears  the  crowd's  tumultuous  cries, 
And  the  impetuous  tyrant's  angry  brow  defies." 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE     PILATE.  83 

This  was  the  reason  why  Pilate  put  on  the 
cross  a  label,  on  which  he  had  written 
these  words  :  Jesus  Nazarenus  Rex  Ju- 
dceorum,  (Jesus  of  Nazareth,  King  of  the 
Jews,)  which  has  since  been  denoted  by 
the  initials  J.  N.  R.  J.  This  was  the  al- 
leged cause  of  his  condemnation.  St.  Mark 
says  —  "And  the  superscription  of  his 
accusation  was  written  over  —  The  King 
of  the  Jews.'''1     Mark  xv.  26. 

This  inscription  was  first  in  Latin, 
which  was  the  legal  language  of  the  Ro- 
man judge  ;  and  it  was  repeated  in  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  in  order  to  be  understood  by 
the  people  of  the  nation  and  by  foreign- 
ers. 

The  chief  priests,  whose  indefatigable 
hatred  did  not  overlook  the  most  minute 
details,  being  apprehensive,  that  people 
would  take  it  to  be  literally  a  fact  affirmed, 
that  Jesus  was  the  King  of  the  Jews,  said 
to  Pilate  :     "  Write   not  King  of  the  Jews, 


84  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

but  that  he  said  I  am  king  of  the  Jews." 
But  Pilate  answered  :  "  What  I  have  writ- 
ten I  have  written."     John  xix.  21,  22. 

This  is  a  conclusive  answer  to  one  of 
the  last  assertions  of  Mr.  Salvador,  (p.  88,) 
that  "  the  Roman  Pilate  signed  the  sen- 
tence ;  "  by  which  he  always  means  that 
Pilate  did  nothing  but  sign  a  sentence, 
which  he  supposes  to  have  been  passed  by 
the  Sanhedrim  ;  but  in  this  he  is  mistaken. 
Pilate  did  not  merely  sign  the  sentence, 
or  decree,  but  drew  it  up  ;  and,  when  his 
draft  was  objected  to  by  the  priests,  he  still 
adhered  to  it,  saying,  what  I  have  written 
shall  remain  as  written. 

Here  then  we  see  the  true  cause  of  the 
condemnation  of  Jesus  !  Here  we  have 
the  " judicial  and  legal  proof."  Jesus 
was  the  victim  of  a  political  accusation  ! 
He  was  put  to  death  for  the  imaginary 
crime  of  having  aimed  at  the  power  of 
Caesar,  by  calling   himself    King    of  the 


V 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  85 

Jeivs  !  Absurd  accusation  ;  which  Pilate 
never  believed,  and  which  the  chief  priests 
and  the  Pharisees  themselves  did  not  be- 
lieve. For  they  were  not  authorized  to 
arrest  Jesus  on  that  account ;  it  was  a  new, 
and  totally  different,  accusation  from  that 
which  they  first  planned  —  a  sudden  ac- 
cusation of  the  moment,  when  they  saw 
that  Pilate  was  but  little  affected  by  their 
religious  zeal,  and  they  found  it  necessary 
to  arouse  his  zeal  for  Caesar. 

"  If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not 
C  cesar1  s  friend  !  This  alarming  language 
has  too  often,  since  that  time,  reverberated 
in  the  ears  of  timid  judges,  who,  like 
Pilate,  have  rendered  themselves  criminal 
by  delivering  up  victims  through  want  of 
firmness,  whom  they  would  never  have 
condemned,  if  they  had  listened  to  the 
voice  of  their  own  consciences. 

Let  us  now  recapitulate  the  case,  as  I 
have  considered  it  from  the  beginning. 


86  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

Is  it  not  evident,  contrary  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  Mr.  Salvador,  that  Jesus,  consid- 
ered merely  a  a  simple  citizen,  was  not 
tried  and  sentenced  either  according  to  law, 
or  agreeably  to  the  forms  of  legal  'pro- 
ceedings then  existing  ? 

God,  according  to  his  eternal  design, 
might  permit  the  just  to  suffer  by  the 
malice  of  men ;  but  he  also  intended,  that 
this  should,  at  least  happen  by  a  disre- 
gard of  all  laws,  and  by  a  violation  of  all 
established  rules,  in  order  that  the  entire 
contempt  of  forms  should  stand  as  the  first 
warning  of  the  violation  of  law. 

Let  us  not  be  surprised  then,  that  in 
another  part  of  his  work,  Mr.  Salvador 
(who,  it  is  gratifying  to  observe,  discusses 
his  subject  dispassionately)  expresses  some 
regret  in  speaking  of  the  "  unfortunate 
sentence  against  Jesus."  Vol.  i.  p.  59.  He 
has  wished  to  excuse  the  Hebrews  ;  but, 
one  of  that  nation,  in  giving   utterance  to 


LAST    EFFORTS    BEFORE    PILATE.  87 

the  feelings  of  his  heart,  still  says — in 
language  which  I  took  from  his  own 
mouth  :  "  We  should  be  very  cautious  of 
condemning  him  at  this  day." 

I  pass  over  the  excesses  which  followed 
the  order  of  Pilate  ;  as,  the  violence  shown 
to  Simon,  the  Cyrenian,  who  was  made  in 
some  degree  a  sharer  in  the  punishment, 
by  being  compelled  to  carry  the  cross  ;  the 
injurious  treatment  which  attended  the 
victim  to  the  place  of  the  sacrifice,*  and 
even  to  the  cross,  where  Jesus  still  prayed 
for  his  brethren  and  his  executioners ! 

To  the  heathen  themselves  I  would  say 
—  You,  who  have  gloried  in  the  death  of 
Socrates,  how  much  must  you  be  struck 
with  wonder  at  that  of  Jesus  !  Ye,  censors 
of  the  Areopagus,  how  could  you  under- 
take to  excuse  the  Synagogue,  and  justify 

*  To  the  sufferings  of  those  who  were  put  to  death 
were  added  mockery  and  derision."  Tacit.  Ann. 
xv.  44. 


88  TRIAL    OF    JESUS. 

the  sentence  of  the  Hall  of  Judgment  r 
Philosophy  herself  has  not  hesitated  to 
proclaim,  and  we  may  repeat  with  her  — 
"  Yes,  if  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates 
were  those  of  a  sage,  the  life  and  death  of 
Jesus  were  those  of  a  divinity." 


